Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DIONISIO CARPIO v. SERGIO DOROJA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 182729 2010-09-29	KUKAN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. AMOR REYES VELASCO JR., J.
In Carpio v. Doroja,[13] the Court ruled that the deciding court has supervisory control over the execution of its judgment: A case in which an execution has been issued is regarded as still pending so that all proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit. There is no question that the court which rendered the judgment has a general supervisory control over its process of execution, and this power carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution.
	GR NO. 163351 2005-06-21	ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAÑA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
We adopt the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals regarding the subsidiary liability of petitioner's employer, Vallacar Transit Inc., under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. An employer may be subsidiarily liable for the employee's civil liability in the criminal action if it can be shown that: (1) the employer is engaged in any kind of industry; (2) the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties and (3) the accused is insolvent.[28] However, subject to prevailing jurisprudence,[29] the subsidiary liability may be enforced only upon a motion for subsidiary writ of execution against Vallacar Transit, Inc. and upon proof that petitioner is insolvent.
	GR NO. 143380 2005-04-11	OLIMPIO PANGONOROM v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
The subsidiary liability of the employer arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal action.[33] In the present case, there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioners, the MMTC is engaged in the transportation industry,[34] and Olimpio has been adjudged guilty of a wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of his duties.[35] However, there is no proof here of Olimpio's insolvency. The judgment of conviction against Olimpio has not attained finality. This being so, no writ of execution can issue against him to satisfy his civil liability. Only after proof of the accused-employee's insolvency may the subsidiary liability of his employer be enforced.[36]