2b1.4 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

7/18/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427 7/18/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the

appeal. This rule is based on the rationale that appellants lose
their standing in court when they abscond. Unless they surrender
or submit to the courts jurisdiction, they are deemed to have
waived their right to seek judicial relief. Moreover, this doctrine
applies not only to the accused who jumps bail during the appeal,
but also to one who does so during the trial. Justice Florenz D.
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Regalado succinctly explains the principle in this wise: x x x.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People When, as in this case, the accused escaped after his arraignment
and during the trial, but the trial in absentia proceeded resulting
*
G.R. No. 147703. April 14, 2004. in the promulgation of a judgment against him and his counsel
appealed, since he nonetheless remained at large his
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. _______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Double
Jeopardy; Parties; Both the accused and the prosecution may
appeal a criminal case, but the government may do so only if the
457
accused would not thereby be placed in double jeopardy; The
offended parties may also appeal the judgment with respect to
their right to civil liability.Section 1 of Rule 122 of the 2000
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states thus: Any party may VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 457
appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be
placed in double jeopardy. Clearly, both the accused and the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People
prosecution may appeal a criminal case, but the government may
do so only if the accused would not thereby be placed in double appeal must be dismissed by analogy with the aforesaid provision
jeopardy. Furthermore, the prosecution cannot appeal on the of this Rule [Rule 124, 8 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure]. x x
ground that the accused should have been given a more severe x
penalty. On the other hand, the offended parties may also appeal
Same; Same; Same; An accused who has escaped and refused
the judgment with respect to their right to civil liability. If the
to surrender to the proper authorities is deemed to have abandoned
accused has the right to appeal the judgment of conviction, the
his appeal rendering the judgment against him final and
offended parties should have the same right to appeal as much of
executory.As to when a judgment of conviction attains finality is
the judgment as is prejudicial to them.
explained in Section 7 of Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Same; Same; Same; Well-established is the principle that the Procedure, which we quote: A judgment of conviction may, upon
appellate court may, upon motion or motu proprio, dismiss an motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes
appeal during its pendency if the accused jumps bail, on the final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty
rationale that the appellant loses his standing in court when he is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period
absconds.Well-established in our jurisdiction is the principle for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially
that the appellate court may, upon motion or motu proprio, or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in
dismiss an appeal during its pendency if the accused jumps bail. writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation. In the
The second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised case before us, the accused-employee has escaped and refused to
Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: The Court of Appeals may surrender to the proper authorities; thus, he is deemed to have
also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the abandoned his appeal. Consequently, the judgment against him
appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps has become final and executory.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/28 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/28

Same; Same; Independent Civil Actions; The 2000 Rules of liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities arising from quasi-
Criminal Procedure has clarified what civil actions are deemed delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil action
instituted in a criminal prosecutionit is only the civil liability of is filed separately, the ex delicto civil liability in the criminal
the accused arising from the crime charged that is deemed prosecution remains, and the offended party maysubject to the
impliedly instituted in a criminal action.At the outset, we must control of the prosecutorstill intervene in the criminal action, in
explain that the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure has clarified order to protect the remaining civil interest therein.
what civil actions are deemed instituted in a criminal prosecution. Same; Same; Subsidiary Civil Liability; Parties; The cases
x x x Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime dealing with the subsidiary liability of employers uniformly
charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action; that declare that, strictly speaking, the employers are not parties to the
is, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the criminal cases instituted against their employees; While employers
right to institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal may assist their employees to the extent of supplying the latters
action. Hence, the subsidiary civil liability of the employer under lawyers, the former cannot act independently on their own behalf,
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced by but can only defend the accused.In its Memorandum, petitioner
execution on the basis of the judgment of conviction meted out to cited a comprehensive list of cases dealing with the subsidiary
the employee. liability of employers. Thereafter, it noted that none can be
Same; Same; Same; The 2000 Rules deleted the requirement of applied to it, because in all th[o]se cases, the accuseds employer
reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed did not interpose an appeal. Indeed, petitioner cannot cite any
separately from criminal actionswhat is deemed instituted in single case in which the employer appealed, precisely because an
every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising from the appeal in such circumstances is not possible. The cases dealing
crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto), but not those with the subsidiary liability of employers uniformly declare that,
liabilities arising from quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. strictly speaking, they are not parties to the criminal cases
It is clear that the 2000 Rules deleted the requirement of instituted against their employees. Although in substance and in
reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed effect, they have an interest therein, this fact should be viewed in
separately from criminal actions. Thus, the civil actions referred the light of their subsidiary liability. While they may assist their
to in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code shall remain employees to the extent of supplying the latters lawyers, as in the
separate, distinct and independent of any criminal prosecution present case, the former cannot act independently on their own
based on the same act. Here are some direct consequences of such behalf, but can only defend the accused.
revision and omission: 1. The right to bring the foregoing actions Same; Same; Same; Same; An employers appeal would violate
based on the Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal the employees right against double jeopardy since the judgment
prosecution, since they are not deemed included therein. 2. against the latter could become subject to modification without his
consent.An appeal from the sentence of the trial court implies a
458 waiver of the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy
and throws the whole case open to a review by the appellate court.
The latter is then called upon to render judgment as law and
justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the, appellant.
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED This is the risk involved when the accused decides to appeal a
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People sentence of conviction. Indeed, appellate courts have the power to
reverse, affirm or modify the judgment of the lower court and to
increase or reduce the penalty it imposed. If the present appeal is
The institution or the waiver of the right to file a separate civil given course, the whole case against the accused-employee
action arising from the crime charged does not extinguish the becomes open to review. It thus follows that a penalty higher than
right to bring such action. 3. The only limitation is that the that which has already been imposed by
offended party cannot recover more than once for the same act or
omission. What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution 459
is the civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se (civil

employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a criminal case

would enable them to amend, nullify or defeat a final judgment
VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 459
rendered by a competent court. By the same token, to allow them
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People to appeal the final criminal conviction of their employees without
the latters consent would also result in improperly amending,
the trial court may be meted out to him. Petitioners appeal would nullifying or defeating the judgment. The decision convicting an
thus violate his right against double jeopardy, since the judgment employee in a criminal case is binding and conclusive upon the
against him could become subject to modification without his employer not only with regard to the formers civil liability, but
consent. We are not in a position to second-guess the reason why also with
the accused effectively waived his right to appeal by jumping bail.
460
It is clear, though, that petitioner may not appeal without
violating his right against double jeopardy.
Same; Same; Same; An accused, by fleeing, exhibits contempt
of the authority of the court and places himself in a position to 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
speculate on his chances for a reversal.By fleeing, the herein
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People
accused exhibited contempt of the authority of the court and
placed himself in a position to speculate on his chances for a
reversal. In the process, he kept himself out of the reach of justice, regard to its amount. The liability of an employer cannot be
but hoped to render the judgment nugatory at his option. Such separated from that of the employee.
conduct is intolerable and does not invite leniency on the part of Same; Same; Same; Requisites.Before the employers
the appellate court. Consequently, the judgment against an subsidiary liability is exacted, however, there must be adequate
appellant who escapes and who refuses to surrender to the proper evidence establishing that (1) they are indeed the employers of
authorities becomes final and executory. the convicted employees; (2) that the former are engaged in some
Same; Same; Same; The provisions of the Revised Penal Code kind of industry; (3) that the crime was committed by the
on subsidiary liabilityArticles 102 and 103are deemed written employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) that the
into the judgments in the cases to which they are applicable. execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to
Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, employers are insolvency. The resolution of these issues need not be done in a
subsidiarily liable for the adjudicated civil liabilities of their separate civil action. But the determination must be based on the
employees in the event of the latters insolvency. The provisions of evidence that the offended party and the employer may fully and
the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liabilityArticles 102 and freely present. Such determination may be done in the same
103are deemed written into the judgments in the cases to which criminal action in which the employees liability, criminal and
they are applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, civil, has been pronounced; and in a hearing set for that precise
the trial court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary purpose, with due notice to the employer, as part of the
liability of the employer. proceedings for the execution of the judgment.
Same; Same; Same; To allow employers to dispute the civil Same; Same; Same; There is only one criminal case against
liability fixed in a criminal case would enable them to amend, the accused-employee, and a finding of guilt has both criminal and
nullify or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent court; civil aspectsit is the height of absurdity for this single case to be
The decision convicting an employee in a criminal case is binding final as to the accused who jumped bail, but not as to an entity
and conclusive upon the employer not only with regard to the whose liability is dependent upon the conviction of the former;
formers civil liability, but also with regard to its amount.In the Where the civil liability of the accused-employee has become final
absence of any collusion between the accused-employee and the and enforceable by reason of his flight, then his employers
offended party, the judgment of conviction should bind the person subsidiary civil liability has also become immediately enforceable.
who is subsidiarily liable. In effect and implication, the stigma of According to the argument of petitioner, fairness dictates that
a criminal conviction surpasses mere civil liability. To allow while the finality of conviction could be the proper sanction to be

imposed upon the accused for jumping bail, the same sanction proper losing party has the right to file an appeal within the
should not affect it. In effect, petitioner-employer splits this case prescribed period, then the former has the correlative right to
into two: first, for itself; and second, for its accused-employee. The enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case. In fact, petitioner
untenability of this argument is clearly evident. There is only one admits that by helping the accused-employee, it participated in
criminal case against the accused-employee. A finding of guilt has the proceedings before the RTC; thus, it cannot be said that the
both criminal and civil aspects. It is the height of absurdity for employer was deprived of due process. It might have lost its right
this single case to be final as to the accused who jumped bail, but to appeal, but it was not denied its day in court. In fact, it can be
not as to an entity whose liability is dependent upon the said that by jumping bail, the accused-employee, not the court,
conviction of the former. The subsidiary liability of petitioner is deprived petitioner of the right to appeal.
incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil liability of the
accused-employee. Since the civil liability of the latter has become PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the
final and enforceable by reason of his flight, then the formers Court of Appeals.
subsidiary civil liability has also become immediately enforceable.
Respondent is correct in arguing that the concept of subsidiary The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
liability is highly contingent on the imposition of the primary civil Peter H. Santiago for petitioner.
liability. Ramon M. Nisce collaborating counsel for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for the people.
Same; Same; Same; Appeals; The right to appeal is neither a Romulo Rivera and Benjamin Z. De Leon, Jr. private
natural right nor a part of due process.As to the argument that prosecutors.
petitioner was deprived of due process, we reiterate that what is
sought to be enforced is the subsidiary civil liability incident to PANGANIBAN, J.:
and dependent upon the employees
When the accused-employee absconds or jumps bail, the
461 judgment meted out becomes final and executory. The
employer cannot defeat the finality of the judgment by
filing a notice of appeal on its own behalf in the guise of
asking for a review of its subsidiary civil liability. Both the
VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 461 primary civil liability of the accused-employee and the
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People subsidiary civil liability of the employer are carried in one
single decision that has become final and executory.
criminal negligence. In other words, the employer becomes ipso 462

facto subsidiarily liable upon the conviction of the employee and
upon proof of the latters insolvency, in the same way that
acquittal wipes out not only his primary civil liability, but also his
employers subsidiary liability for his criminal negligence. It Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People
should be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural
right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy
of statutory origin, a remedy that may be exercised only in the
manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing such
The Case
1
exercise. Hence, the legal requirements must be strictly complied Before this Court is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of
2
with. the Rules of Court, assailing the March 29, 2000 and the
3
Same; Same; Same; Same; Due Process; It can be said that by March 27, 2001 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA)
jumping bail, the accused-employee, not the court, deprived the in CA-G.R. CV No. 59390. Petitioners appeal from the
employer of the right to appeal.After a judgment has become judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San
final, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. If the Fernando, La Union in Criminal Case No. 2535 was
dismissed in the first Resolution as follows: Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is

4 c. to the heirs of LORNA ANCHETA, the sum of P50,000.00
GRANTED and the appeal is ordered DISMISSED.
as indemnity for her death, the sum of P22,838.00 as
The second Resolution denied petitioners Motion for funeral expenses, the sum of P20,544.94 as medical
5
Reconsideration. expenses and her loss of income for 30 years at P1,000.00
per month, and the further sum of P100,000.00 for moral
damages;
The Facts d. to MAUREEN BRENNAN, the sum of P229,654.00 as
hospital expenses, doctors fees of P170,000.00 for the
The facts of the case are summarized by the CA in this
orthopedic surgeon, P22,500.00 for the [n]eurologist, an
wise:
additional indemnity [of] at least P150,000.00 to cover
On July 27, 1994, accused [Napoleon Roman y Macadangdang] future correction of deformity of her limbs, and moral
was found guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00;
imprudence resulting to triple homicide, multiple physical e. to ROSIE BALAJO, the sum of P3,561.46 as medical
injuries and damage to property and was sentenced to suffer the expenses, P2,000.00 as loss of income, and P25,000.00 as
penalty of four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days to moral damages;
six (6) years, and to pay damages as follows: f. to TERESITA TAMONDONG, the sum of P19,800.47 as
medical expenses, P800.00 for loss of income, and
a. to pay the heirs of JUSTINO TORRES the sum of
P25,000.00 as moral damages;
P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, plus the sum of
P25,383.00, for funeral expenses, his unearned income for g. to JULIANA TABTAB, the amount of P580.81 as medical
one year at P2,500.00 a month, P50,000.00 as indemnity expenses, P4,600.00 as actual damages and her loss
for the support of Renato Torres, and the further sum of earnings of P1,400.00 as well as moral damages in the
P300,000.00 as moral damages; amount of P10,000.00;
b. to the heirs of ESTRELLA VELERO, the sum of h. to MIGUEL ARQUITOLA, the sum of P12,473.82 as
P50,000.00 as indemnity for her death, the sum of hospital expenses, P14,530.00 as doctors fees, P1,000.00
P237,323.75 for funeral expenses, her unearned income for for medicines and P50,000.00 as moral damages;
three years at P45,000.00 per annum, and the further sum i. to CLARITA CABANBAN, the sum of P155.00 for medical
of P1,000,000.00 as moral damages and P200,000.00 as expenses, P87.00 for medicines, P1,710.00 as actual
attorneys fees[;] damages and P5,000.00 as moral damages;
j. to MARIANO CABANBAN, the sum of P1,395.00 for
_______________
hospital bills, P500.00 for medicine, P2,100.00 as actual
damages, P1,200.00 for loss of income and P5,000.00 as
1 Rollo, pp. 9-28. moral damages;
2 Id., pp. 30-34. Penned by Justice Mariano M. Umali and concurred in k. to La Union Electric Company as the registered owner of
by Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (Division chair) and Edgardo P. Cruz the Toyota Hi-Ace Van, the amount of P250,000.00 as
(member). actual damages for the cost of the totally wrecked vehicle;
3 Id., pp. 36-37. to the owner of the jeepney, the amount of P22,698.38 as
4 CA Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 34. actual damages;
5 Annex G of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 115-124.
The court further ruled that [petitioner], in the event of the
463
insolvency of accused, shall be liable for the civil liabilities of the
accused. Evidently, the judgment against accused had become
VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 463 final and executory.
Admittedly, accused had jumped bail and remained at-large.

It is worth mention[ing] that Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of
Court authorizes the dismissal of appeal when appellant jumps The Issues
bail. Counsel for accused, also admittedly hired and provided by
Petitioner states the issues of this case as follows:
[petitioner], filed a notice of appeal which was denied by the trial
court. We affirmed the denial of the notice of appeal filed in behalf
_______________
of accused.
6 CA Decision, pp. 2-4; Rollo, pp. 31-33.
464
7 The case was deemed submitted for resolution on April 24, 2002, upon
this Courts receipt of respondents Memorandum signed by Assistant
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Solicitors General Carlos N. Ortega and Roman G. del Rosario and
Associate Solicitor Elizabeth Victoria L. Medina. Petitioners
Memorandum, signed by Atty. Ramon M. Nisce, was received by the Court
on April 9, 2002.
Simultaneously, on August 6, 1994, [petitioner] filed its notice of
appeal from the judgment of the trial court. On April 29, 1997, the 465
trial court gave due course to [petitioners] notice of appeal. On
December 8, 1998, [petitioner] filed its brief. On December 9,
1998, the Office of the Solicitor General received [a] copy of VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 465
[petitioners] brief. On January 8, 1999, the OSG moved to be Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People
excused from filing [respondents] brief on the ground that the
OSGs authority to represent People is confined to criminal cases A. Whether or not an employer, who dutifully
on appeal. The motion was however denied per Our resolution of participated in the defense of its accused-employee,
May 31, 1999. On March 2, 1999, [respondent]/private prosecutor may appeal the judgment of conviction
6
filed the instant motion to dismiss. (Citations omitted) independently of the accused.
B. Whether or not the doctrines of Alvarez v. Court of
Appeals (158 SCRA 57) and Yusay8 v. Adil (164
Ruling of the Court of Appeals SCRA 494) apply to the instant case.
The CA ruled that the institution of a criminal case implied There is really only one issue. Item B above is merely an
the institution also of the civil action arising from the adjunct to Item A.
offense. Thus, once determined in the criminal case against
the accused-employee, the employers subsidiary civil
liability as set forth in Article 103 of the Revised Penal The Courts Ruling
Code becomes conclusive and enforceable.
The appellate court further held that to allow an The Petition has no merit.
employer to dispute independently the civil liability fixed
in the criminal case against the accused-employee would be Main Issue:
to amend, nullify or defeat a final judgment. Since the Propriety of Appeal by the Employer
notice of appeal filed by the accused had already been
dismissed by the CA, then the judgment of conviction and Pointing out that it had seasonably filed a notice of appeal
the award of civil liability became final and executory. from the RTC Decision, petitioner contends that the
Included in the civil liability of the accused was the judgment of conviction against the accused-employee has
employers subsidiary liability.
7
not attained finality. The former insists that its appeal
Hence, this Petition. stayed the finality, notwithstanding the fact that the latter
had jumped bail. In effect, petitioner argues that its appeal
takes the place of that of the accused-employee. prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country
12
We are not persuaded. during the pendency of the appeal.
Appeals in Criminal Cases This rule is based on the rationale that appellants lose
their standing in court when they abscond. Unless they
Section 1 of Rule 122 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
surrender or submit to the courts jurisdiction, they 13 are
Procedure states thus:
deemed to have waived their right to seek judicial relief.
Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the Moreover, this doctrine applies not only to the accused
accused will be placed in double jeopardy. who jumps bail during the appeal, but also to one who does
so during the trial. Justice Florenz D. Regalado succinctly
Clearly, both the accused and the prosecution may appeal a explains the principle in this wise:
criminal case, but the government may do so only if the9
accused would not thereby be placed in double jeopardy. x x x. When, as in this case, the accused escaped after his
Furthermore, the prosecution cannot appeal on the ground arraignment and during the trial, but the trial in absentia
that the10 accused should have been given a more severe proceeded resulting in the promulgation of a judgment against
penalty. On the other hand, the him and his counsel appealed, since he nonetheless remained at
large his appeal must be dismissed by analogy with the aforesaid
provision of this Rule [Rule 124, 8 of the Rules on Criminal
_______________ 14
Procedure]. x x x
8 Petitioners Memorandum, p. 8; Rollo, p. 200.
9 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II (2001, 9th revised _______________
edition), p. 502.
10 Ibid. 11 People v. Ursua, 60 Phil. 252, August 1, 1934.
12 This is substantially the same as the 1985 Rules on Criminal
466 Procedure.
13 People v. Del Rosario, 348 SCRA 603, December 19, 2000.
14 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, supra, p. 540.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People 467
offended parties may also appeal the judgment with respect VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 467
to their right to civil liability. If the accused has the right
to appeal the judgment of conviction, the offended parties Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People
should have the same right to 11 appeal as much of the
judgment as is prejudicial to them. The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless
they voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the court or
Appeal by the Accused are otherwise arrested 15 within 15 days from notice of the
Who Jumps Bail judgment against them. While at large, they cannot seek
Well-established in our jurisdiction is the principle that the relief from 16the court, as they are deemed to have waived
appellate court may, upon motion or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal.
an appeal during its pendency if the accused jumps bail.
Finality of a Decision
The second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 124 of the 2000
in a Criminal Case
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
As to when a judgment of conviction attains finality is
The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or explained in Section 7 of Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules of
motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from Criminal Procedure, which we quote:

A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be unless committed by the innkeepers employees.
modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is
perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment Moreover, the foregoing subsidiary liability applies to
becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an employers, according to Article 103 which reads:
appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally
The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article
satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his
shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
right to appeal, or has applied for probation.
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their
In the case before us, the accused-employee has escaped servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
and refused to surrender to the proper authorities; thus, he discharge of their duties.
is deemed to have abandoned his appeal. Consequently, the
17 Having laid all these basic rules and principles, we now
judgment against him has become final and executory.
address the main issue raised by petitioner.
Liability of an Employer
Civil Liability Deemed Instituted
in a Finding of Guilt
in the Criminal Prosecution
Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary
At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules of
civil liabilities of innkeepers, as follows:
Criminal Procedure has clarified what civil actions are
In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, deemed instituted in a criminal prosecution.
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be Section 1 of Rule 111 of the current Rules of Criminal
civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all Procedure provides:
cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be
their employees.
deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for restitution of goods
party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
therein, or for
action.
x x x x x x x x x
_______________
Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime
15 Ibid.
charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action;
16 Ibid., citing People v. Mapalao, 274 Phil. 354; 197 SCRA 79, May 14, 1991.
that is, unless the offended party waives the civil action,
17 People v. Enoja, 378 Phil. 623; 321 SCRA 7, December 17, 1999.
reserves the right to institute18 it separately, or institutes it
468 prior to the criminal action. Hence, the subsidiary civil
liability of the employer under

_______________
18 Panganiban, Transparency, Unanimity & Diversity (2000 ed.), pp.
payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall 211-212.
have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person
469
representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and
shall furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 469
to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach
in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced by from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced
execution on the basis
19
of the judgment of conviction meted
out to the employee. 470
It is clear that the 2000 Rules deleted the requirement
of reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
proceed separately from criminal 20
actions. Thus, the civil
actions referred to in Articles 32, Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People
21 22 23
_______________
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code shall remain
separate, distinct and independent of any criminal
19 Id., p. 212. prosecution based on the same act. Here are some direct
20 ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, consequences of such revision and omission:
who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another 1. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the
person shall be liable to the latter for damages: Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal
prosecution, since they are not deemed included therein.
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech; _______________
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical
publication; by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession,
except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment,
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of
statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional;
law;
and
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws; In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
(9) The right to be secure in ones person, house, papers, and effects defendants act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved
against unreasonable searches and seizures; party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same; action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
may be proved by a preponderance of evidence:
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may
purposes not contrary to law;
also be adjudicated.
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge
Government for redress of grievances; unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form; other penal statute.
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail; 21 ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of a preponderance of evidence.
witness in his behalf; 22 ART. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses
or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against ones self, or
property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the
27
city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil not interpose an appeal. Indeed, petitioner cannot cite
action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, any single case in which the employer appealed, precisely
and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. because an appeal in such circumstances is not possible.
23 ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. employers uniformly declare that, strictly speaking, they
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation are not parties 28to the criminal cases instituted against
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the their employees. Although in substance and in effect, they
provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) have an interest therein, this fact
471
_______________
VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 471

24 Panganiban, Transparency, Unanimity & Diversity, supra, p. 214.
25 Id., pp. 214-215.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People 26 Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code.
27 Petitioners Memorandum, p. 13; Rollo, p. 205.
2. The institution or the waiver of the right to file a 28 Miranda v. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc., 99 Phil. 670, July 31,
separate civil action arising from the crime charged 1956.
does not extinguish the right to bring such action.
472
3. The only limitation is that the offended party
cannot recover
24
more than once for the same act or
omission. 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is
the civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se
(civil liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities arising should be viewed in the light of their subsidiary liability.
from quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact, While they may assist their employees to the extent of
even if a civil action is filed separately, the ex delicto civil supplying the latters lawyers, as in the present case, the
liability in the criminal prosecution remains, and the former cannot act independently on their own behalf, but
offended party maysubject to the control of the can only defend the accused.
prosecutorstill intervene in the criminal action, in order
25 Waiver of Constitutional Safeguard
to protect the remaining civil interest therein.
Against Double Jeopardy
This discussion is completely in accord with the Revised
Penal Code, which states that [e]very person criminally Petitioners appeal obviously aims to have the accused-
26
liable for a felony is also civilly liable. employee absolved of his criminal responsibility and the
Petitioner argues that, as an employer, it is considered a judgment reviewed as a whole. 29These intentions are
party to the criminal case and is conclusively bound by the apparent from its30 Appellants Brief filed with the CA and
outcome thereof. Consequently, petitioner must be from its Petition before us, both of which claim that the
accorded the right to pursue the case to its logical trial courts
31
finding of guilt is not supported by competent
conclusionincluding the appeal. evidence.
The argument has no merit. Undisputedly, petitioner is An appeal from the sentence of the trial court implies a
not a direct party to the criminal case, which was filed waiver of the constitutional safeguard against double
solely against Napoleon M. Roman, its employee. jeopardy and throws the whole case open to a review by the
In its Memorandum, petitioner cited a comprehensive appellate court. The latter is then called upon to render
list of cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of judgment as law and justice dictate,
32
whether favorable or
employers. Thereafter, it noted that none can be applied to unfavorable to the, appellant. This is the risk involved
it, because in all th[o]se cases, the accuseds employer did when the accused decides to appeal a sentence of
27 33
not interpose an appeal. Indeed, petitioner cannot cite
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/28 conviction. Indeed, appellate courts have the power to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/28
33
conviction. Indeed, appellate courts have the power to them. This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused.
reverse, affirm or modify the judgment of the lower
34
court He may avail of it or not, as he pleases. He may waive it either
and to increase or reduce the penalty it imposed. expressly or by implication. When the accused flees after the case
If the present appeal is given course, the whole case has been submitted to the court for decision, he will be deemed to
against the accused-employee becomes open to review. It have waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered
37
thus follows that a penalty higher than that which has against him. x x x.
already been imposed by the trial court may be meted out
to him. Petitioners appeal would thus violate his right By fleeing, the herein accused exhibited contempt of the
against double jeopardy, since the judgment against him authority of the court and placed himself in a position to
could become subject to modification without his consent. speculate on his chances for a reversal. In the process, he
We are not in a position to second-guess the reason why kept himself out of the reach of justice, but
38
hoped to render
the accused effectively waived his right to appeal by the judgment nugatory at his option. Such conduct is
jumping bail. It is intolerable and 39does not invite leniency on the part of the
appellate court.
Consequently, the judgment against an appellant who
_______________
escapes and who refuses to surrender 40
to the proper
29 CA Rollo, pp. 66-108. authorities becomes final and executory.
30 Rollo, pp. 9-28. Thus far, we have clarified that petitioner has no right
31 Appellants Brief, p. 14; CA Rollo, p. 84. to appeal the criminal case against the accused-employee;
32 Lontoc v. People, 74 Phil. 513, December 29, 1943. that by jumping bail, he has waived his right to appeal; and
33 People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383, December 9, 1999. that the judgment in the criminal case against him is now
34 Lontoc v. People, supra; United States v. Abijan, 1 Phil. 83, January final.
7, 1902. See also 11 of Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. _______________
473 35 Francisco, Criminal Procedure (1996, 3rd ed.), p. 520.

36 73 Phil. 366, October 31, 1941.
37 Id., p. 369, per Abad Santos, J.
VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 473
38 Francisco, Criminal Procedure, supra, p. 520.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People 39 Ibid.
40 People v. Enoja, supra.
clear, though, that petitioner may not appeal without
474
violating his right against double jeopardy.
Effect of Absconding 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

on the Appeal Process
Moreover, within the meaning of the principles governing
the prevailing criminal procedure, the accused impliedly
withdrew his appeal by jumping bail and thereby made the
35 Subsidiary Liability
judgment of the court below final. Having been a fugitive Upon Finality of Judgment
from justice for a long period of time, he is deemed to have
waived his right to appeal. Thus, his conviction36is now final As a matter of law, the subsidiary liability of petitioner
and executory. The Court in People v. Ang Gioc ruled: now accrues. Petitioner argues that the rulings of this 41
Court in Miranda
42
v. Malate Garage43
& Taxicab, Inc.,
There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived Alvarez v. CA and Yusay v. Adil do not apply to the
even by the accused himself, but the right of appeal is not one of present case, because it has followed the Courts directive
to the employers in these cases to take part in the criminal ees without the latters consent would also result in
cases against their employees. By participating in the improperly amending, nullifying or defeating the judgment.
defense of its employee, herein petitioner tries to shield The decision convicting an employee in a criminal case is
itself from the undisputed rulings laid down in these binding and conclusive upon the employer not only with
leading cases. regard to the formers civil liability, but also with regard to
Such posturing is untenable. In dissecting these cases on its amount. The liability of an 49employer cannot be
subsidiary liability, petitioner lost track of the most basic separated from that of the employee.
tenet they have laid downthat an employers liability in a Before the employers subsidiary liability is exacted,
finding of guilt against its accused-employee is subsidiary. however, there must be adequate evidence establishing
Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, employers that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted
are subsidiarily liable for the adjudicated civil liabilities
44
of employees; (2) that the former are engaged in some kind of
their employees in the event of the latters insolvency. The industry; (3) that the crime was committed by the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) that the
Articles 102 and 103are deemed written into the 45
execution against
50
the latter has not been satisfied due to
judgments in the cases to which they are applicable. insolvency.
Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial The resolution of these issues need not be done in a
court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability separate civil action. But the determination must be based
of the employer. on the evidence that the offended party and the employer
In the absence of any collusion between the accused- may fully and freely present. Such determination may be
employee and the offended party, the judgment of done in the same criminal action in which the employees
51
conviction
46
should bind the person who is subsidiarily liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced; and in a
liable. In effect and implication, the stigma
47
of a criminal hearing set for that precise purpose, with due notice to the
conviction surpasses mere civil liability. employer, as part of the proceedings for the execution of the
To allow employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a judgment.
criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify 48
or Just because the present petitioner participated in the
defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent court. By defense of its accused-employee does not mean that its
the same token, to allow them to appeal the final criminal liability has transformed its nature; its liability remains
conviction of their employ- subsidiary. Neither will its participation erase its
subsidiary liability. The fact remains that since the
_______________ accused-employees conviction has attained finality, then
the subsidiary liability of the employer ipso facto attaches.
41 Supra at note 28. According to the argument of petitioner, fairness
42 158 SCRA 57, February 23, 1988. dictates that while the finality of conviction could be the
43 164 SCRA 494, August 18, 1988. proper sanction to be imposed upon the accused for
44 Lagazon v. Reyes, 166 SCRA 386, October 18, 1988. jumping bail, the same sanction should not affect it. In
45 Alvarez v. Court of Appeals, supra. effect, petitioner-employer splits this case into two: first, for
46 Martinez v. Barredo, 81 Phil. 1, May 13, 1948. itself; and second, for its accused-employee.
47 Ibid.
48 Yusay v. Adil, supra; Pajarito v. Seeris, 87 SCRA 275, December 14,
_______________
1978.
49 Lagazon v. Reyes, supra; Miranda P. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc.,
475
supra.
50 Ozoa v. Vda. de Madula, 156 SCRA 779, December 22, 1987.
VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 475 51 Ibid.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People 476

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 477

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 477
The untenability of this argument is clearly evident. There Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People
is only one criminal case against the accused-employee. A
finding of guilt has both criminal and civil aspects. It is the
It would be incorrect to consider the requirements of the
height of absurdity for this single case to be final as to the
rules on appeal as merely harmless and trivial
accused who jumped bail, but not as to an entity whose 56
technicalities that can be discarded. Indeed, deviations
liability is dependent upon the conviction of the former. 57
from the rules cannot be tolerated. In these times when
The subsidiary liability of petitioner is incidental to and
court dockets are clogged with numerous litigations, such
dependent on the pecuniary civil liability of the accused-
rules have to be followed by parties with greater fidelity, so
employee. Since the civil liability of the latter has become 58
as to facilitate the orderly disposition of those cases.
final and enforceable by reason of his flight, then the
After a judgment has become final, vested rights are
formers subsidiary civil liability has also become
acquired by the winning party. If the proper losing party
immediately enforceable. Respondent is correct in arguing
has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period,
that the concept of subsidiary liability is highly contingent
then the former has the correlative right to enjoy the
on the imposition of the primary civil liability. 59
finality of the resolution of the case.
No Deprivation In fact, petitioner admits that by helping the accused-
of Due Process employee, it participated in the proceedings before the
RTC; thus, it cannot be said that the employer was
As to the argument that petitioner was deprived of due
deprived of due process. It might have lost 60 its right to
process, we reiterate that what is sought to be enforced is
appeal, but it was not denied its day in court. In fact, it
the subsidiary civil liability incident to and dependent upon
can be said that by jumping bail, the accused-employee, not
the employees criminal negligence. In other words, the
the court, deprived petitioner of the right to appeal.
employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon the
All told, what is left to be done is to execute the RTC
conviction of the employee and upon proof of the latters
Decision against the accused. It should be clear that only
insolvency, in the same way that acquittal wipes out not
after proof of his insolvency may the subsidiary liability of
only his primary civil liability, but also his employers
52 petitioner be enforced. It has been sufficiently proven that
subsidiary liability for his criminal negligence.
there exists an employer-employee relationship; that the
It should be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a
53 employer is engaged in some kind of industry; and that the
natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a
employee has been adjudged guilty of the wrongful act and
procedural remedy of statutory origin, a remedy that may
found to have committed the offense in the discharge of his
be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the
54 duties. The proof is clear from the admissions of petitioner
provisions of law authorizing such exercise. Hence, the
55 that [o]n 26 August 1990, while on its regular trip from
legal requirements must be strictly complied with.
Laoag to Manila, a passenger bus owned by petitioner,
being then operated by petitioners driver, Napoleon Roman, 61
_______________ figured in an accident in San Juan, La Union x x x.
Neither does petitioner dispute that there was already a
52 Alvarez v. Court of Appeals, supra; Martinez v. Barredo, supra.
finding of guilt against the accused while he was in the
53 Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 384 SCRA 466, July 11, 2002.
discharge of his duties.
54 Oro v. Judge Diaz, 361 SCRA 108, July 11, 2001; Mercury Drug Corp.
v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 902; 335 SCRA 567, July 13, 2000; Ortiz v.
Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 708, December 4, 1998. _______________
55 Pedrosa v. Hill, 257 SCRA 373, June 14, 1996; Del Rosario v. Court of 56 Casim v. Flordeliza, 374 SCRA 386, January 23, 2002.
Appeals, 241 SCRA 553, February 22, 1995.

57 People v. Marong, 119 SCRA 430, December 27, 1982.

58 Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals, supra.
59 Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 50,
November 28, 1996.
60 Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, supra.
61 Petition for Review, p. 2; Rollo, p. 10; Memorandum for Petitioner, p.
2; Rollo, p. 194.
478

Litonjua vs. Fernandez
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the

assailed Resolutions AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Ynares-Santiago,

Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, assailed resolutions affirmed.
Notes.While the Supreme Court has sanctioned the

enforcement of the employers subsidiary liability in the
same criminal proceedings in which the employee is
adjudged guilty, execution against the employer must not
issue as just a matter of courseit 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 employers liability.
(Yonaha vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 397 [1996])
A final judgment rendered in a civil case absolving the
defendant from civil liability is no bar to a criminal action.
(Bordador vs. Luz, 283 SCRA 374 [1997])
o0o
Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

2b1.4 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2b1.4 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

7/18/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427 7/18/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427

bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/28 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/28

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/28 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/28

employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a criminal case

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/28 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/28

criminal negligence. In other words, the employer becomes ipso 462

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is

Admittedly, accused had jumped bail and remained at-large.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/28 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/28

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 427, APRIL 14, 2004 471

473 35 Francisco, Criminal Procedure (1996, 3rd ed.), p. 520.

Effect of Absconding 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People 476

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/28 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/28

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 477

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/28 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/28

57 People v. Marong, 119 SCRA 430, December 27, 1982.

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Ynares-Santiago,

Petition denied, assailed resolutions affirmed.

Notes.While the Supreme Court has sanctioned the

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/28 http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000155f9b5bb7bd619af5a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/28

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen