5 Manliclic vs.

Calaunan  Counsel of Calaunan wanted to mark other TSNs and documents from the
GR # 150157 criminal case to be adopted in the instance
DATE: Jan. 25, 2007 o However, since it was not brought to the RTC, counsel for
MJB petitioners compromised that the TSNs and documents could be
Topic:Quasi Delicts offered by counsel for Calaunan as rebuttal evidence
Petitioners: Mauricio Manliclic, Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.  [Disagreement: Who is to be held liable for the collision?]
Respondents: Modesto Calaunan  Calaunan insists it was Manliclic who should be liable while Manliclic avers
Ponente: Chico-Nazario that it was Calaunan who caused the smash up
FACTS:  PRBLI maintained that it observed and exercised diligence of a good father
 Vehicles involved: of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees
o Philippine Rabbot Bus 353 (plate # CVD-478) owned by PRBLI, driven  RTC: in favor of Caluanan
by Manliclic, bound for Manila from Tarlac o Ordered defendants (petitioners) to pay plaintiff (Calaunan)
o Owner-type jeep (plate # PER-290) owned by Calaunan driven by P40k for actual damages; P100k moral damages; P100k
Mendoza, going to Manila together from Pangasinan exemplary damages; P15k atty’s fees
 Along NLEX (Plaridel, Bulacan), 2 vehicles collided  Petitioners appealed
o Front right side of PH Rabbit Bus hit rear left side of the jeep  CA: affirmed
o Jeep fall on a ditch with water resulting to extensive damage  Hence, this petition
 Calaunan suffered minor injuries while Mendoza fortunately didn’t  Pending appeal, Calaunan died
o He was bought to the hospital by one Buan, conductor of PH o Court granted Motion for Substitution of Respondent filed by
Rabbit Bus Mrs. Calaunan (wife) and children
 Criminal case was filed before RTC Bulacan charging Manliclic with reckless  Petitioner also informed the court of CA’s decision acquitting Manliclic in
imprudence resulting in damage to property with physical injuries the criminal charge
 Then, Calaunan filed complaint for damages against Manliclic and PRBLI ISSUES:
with RTC Dagupan 1. Whether the petitioner, Manliclic, may be held liable for the collision and be
 Criminal case was tried ahead of the civil case found negligent notwithstanding the declaration of the CA in the criminal case
 In this civil case, parties agreed: that there was an absence of negligence on his part.
o Capacity of the parties to sue and be sued, venue and identities 2. Whether the petitioner, PRBLI, exercised due diligence and supervision of its
of vehicles involved employee.
o Identity of drivers and that they are duly licensed
o Date and place of vehicular collusion HELD: HABA TALAGA RULING NITO MGA SIR!!!
o Extent of injuries suffered by Calaunan with med cert  The petitioner, Manliclic, is civilly liable for the damages for his negligence or
o Facts: both vehicles going south, jeep being ahead of the bus, reckless imprudence based on quasi-delict.
weather was fair, road was well paved and straight  The PRBLI is held solidarily liable for the damages caused by the petitioner
 Counsel for Calaunan prayed for transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) Manliclic’s negligence.
of testimonies of Calaunan, Mendoza and Ramos (witnesses in criminal
case) as theses witnesses are not available to testify in the civil case
 RTC Dagupan subpoenaed clerk of court of RTC Bulacan to the TSNs with
other documentary evidence marked in the criminal case
 Instead of branch clerk of court, it was Guevara (court interpreter) who
appeared before the court and identified the TSNs of the 3 witnesses
1. there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability
Civil liability arising from crime v. Quasi-delict/Culpa Acquiliana might arise did not exist).
2.
 From the complaint, it can be gathered that the civil case for damages was one PRBLI’s liability
arising from or based on quasi-delict:  Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, when an injury is caused by the
o Petitioner Manliclic was sued for his negligence or reckless negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that
imprudence in causing the collision, there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the
o While petitioner PRBLI was sued for its failure to exercise the diligence selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after
of a good father in the selection and supervision of its employees selection or both.
 Petitioner Manliclic was acquitted not on reasonable doubt, but on the ground  The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is
that he is not the author of the act complained of which is based on Section not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a
2(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which reads: prior showing of the insolvency of such employee.
o (b) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of o Therefore, it is incumbent upon the private respondents to prove
the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the
judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist selection and supervision of their employee.
 In spite of said ruling, petitioner Manliclic can still be held liable for the  In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine
mishap. them as to their qualifications, experience and service records. In the
 The afore-quoted section applies only to a civil action arising from crime or supervision of employees, the employer must formulate standard operating
ex delicto and not to a civil action arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. procedures, monitor their implementation and impose disciplinary measures
 The extinction of civil liability referred to in the quoted provision, refers for the breach thereof.
exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code,  As the negligence of the employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence
o whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi- on the part of the employer, the latter has the burden of proving that it has
delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a been diligent not only in the selection of employees but also in the actual
declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not supervision of their work.
happened or has not been committed by the accused.  The trial court found that petitioner PRBLI exercised the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection but not in the supervision of its employees. It
Civil Liability Arising From A Crime seems that the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines has a very good procedure of
(a) if an accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt on his guilt, his civil recruiting its driver as well as in the maintenance of its vehicles.
liability arising from the crime may be proved by preponderance of  There is no evidence though that it is as good in the supervision of its
evidence only. personnel.
(b) if an accused is acquitted on the basis that he was not the author of the act  No evidence introduced that there are rules promulgated by the bus company
or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment regarding the safe operation of its vehicle and in the way its driver should
that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist), said acquittal manage and operate the vehicles
closes the door to civil liability based on the crime or ex delicto.  The presence of ready investigators after the occurrence of the accident is not
enough. Same does not comply with the guidelines set forth with regard to
Civil Liability Arising From Quasi-Delict the supervision. Regular supervision of employees, that is, prior to any
o A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil accident, should have been shown and established.
Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and  For failure to adduce proof that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a
independent from a delict or crime. family in the selection and supervision of its employees, petitioner PRBLI is held
o Civil liability arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, same will not be solidarily responsible for the damages caused by petitioner Manliclic’s
extinguished by an acquittal, whether it be on ground of reasonable doubt or negligence.
that accused was not the author of the act or omission complained of (or that  The instant petition for review is DENIED – Modification of Damages