Due Process is Paramount: Employers Entitled to a Hearing on Subsidiary Liability

Evelyn Yonaha vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Hector Cañete, G.R. No. 112346, March 29, 1996

Imagine a business owner suddenly facing financial responsibility for the reckless actions of an employee. This scenario highlights the importance of understanding an employer’s subsidiary liability under Philippine law. The Yonaha vs. Court of Appeals case clarifies that employers are entitled to due process, including a hearing, before being held subsidiarily liable for their employee’s criminal acts.

This case explores the extent to which an employer can be held responsible for the actions of their employee and reinforces the necessity of due process in determining such liability.

Understanding Subsidiary Liability: Legal Framework

The Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 103, establishes the subsidiary civil liability of employers. This means that if an employee commits a crime in the performance of their duties and is unable to pay the civil indemnity, the employer may be held secondarily liable.

Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code states: “The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.”

For instance, if a delivery driver, while on duty, negligently causes an accident resulting in injury or death, the employer could be held subsidiarily liable if the driver is unable to fully compensate the victim. This liability, however, is not automatic and requires specific conditions to be met.

The Yonaha Case: A Battle for Due Process

The case originated from a criminal case where Elmer Ouano, driving a vehicle owned by EK SEA Products and registered under Raul Cabahug, was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide after hitting and killing Hector Cañete. Evelyn Yonaha was the employer of Elmer Ouano.

• Ouano pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay damages to the heirs of the victim.
• When Ouano couldn’t pay, the heirs sought a subsidiary writ of execution against Yonaha, the employer.
• The trial court granted the motion without prior notice or hearing to Yonaha.
• Yonaha challenged the order, arguing a lack of due process.

The Court of Appeals initially dismissed Yonaha’s petition, stating that a hearing would be a mere formality since the driver’s conviction and insolvency had been established. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of due process, stating that execution against the employer must not issue as just a matter of course, and it behooves the court, as a measure of due process to the employer, to determine and resolve a priori, in a hearing set for the purpose, the legal applicability and propriety of the employer’s liability.

The Court further elaborated: “The assumption that, since petitioner in this case did not aver any exculpatory facts in her ‘motion to stay and recall,’ as well as in her motion for reconsideration, which could save her from liability, a hearing would be a futile and a sheer rigmarole is unacceptable. The employer must be given his full day in court.”

Practical Implications: What This Means for Employers

This ruling underscores the need for a hearing to determine the employer’s subsidiary liability. The court must establish:

• The existence of an employer-employee relationship.
• That the employer is engaged in some kind of industry.
• That the employee committed the offense in the discharge of their duties.
• That the employee is insolvent.

Consider a scenario where a company driver uses the company vehicle for personal errands and causes an accident. Even if the driver is convicted, the employer may not be subsidiarily liable if it can be proven that the accident did not occur while the employee was performing their duties.

Key Lessons:

• Due Process is Essential: Employers have the right to a hearing before being held subsidiarily liable.
• Burden of Proof: The court must establish all the necessary conditions for subsidiary liability.
• Scope of Duty: The employee’s actions must be within the scope of their employment duties.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is subsidiary liability?

A: Subsidiary liability is the secondary responsibility of an employer for the criminal acts of their employee if the employee is unable to pay the civil indemnity.

Q: When can an employer be held subsidiarily liable?

A: An employer can be held subsidiarily liable if there is an employer-employee relationship, the employer is engaged in an industry, the employee committed the crime in the performance of their duties, and the employee is insolvent.

Q: Is a hearing required before an employer is held subsidiarily liable?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that a hearing is required to ensure due process for the employer.

Q: What factors are considered during the hearing?

A: The court will consider the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the nature of the employer’s business, whether the employee’s actions were within the scope of their duties, and the employee’s solvency.

Q: What if the employee was acting outside the scope of their employment?

A: If the employee was acting outside the scope of their employment duties, the employer may not be held subsidiarily liable.

Q: Does a guilty plea from the employee automatically make the employer liable?

A: No, a guilty plea from the employee does not automatically make the employer liable. The court must still conduct a hearing to determine if all the conditions for subsidiary liability are met.

Q: What should an employer do if they receive a notice of subsidiary liability?

A: An employer should immediately seek legal counsel to understand their rights and obligations and to prepare for the hearing.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and criminal defense. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.