Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 150157 January 25, 2007
MAURICIO MANLICLIC and PHILIPPINE RAIT US LINES, INC., Petitioners,
vs.
MO!ESTO CALAUNAN, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
CHICO"NA#ARIO, J.:
"ssailed before #s is the decision
$
of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"%&.R. !V No. ''()(
*hich affir+ed in toto the decision
,
of the Re-ional Trial !ourt .RT!/ of Da-upan
!it0, 1ranch 2,, in !ivil !ase No. D%$))34, findin- petitioners Mauricio Manliclic and
Philippine Rabbit 1us 5ines, Inc. .PR15I/ solidaril0 liable to pa0 da+a-es and
attorne06s fees to respondent Modesto !alaunan.
The factual antecedents are as follo*s7
The vehicles involved in this case are7 .$/ Philippine Rabbit 1us No. 8'8 *ith plate
nu+ber !VD%293, o*ned b0 petitioner PR15I and driven b0 petitioner Mauricio
Manliclic: and .,/ o*ner%t0pe ;eep *ith plate nu+ber PR%,(), o*ned b0 respondent
Modesto !alaunan and driven b0 Marcelo Mendo<a.
"t around 47)) to 97)) o6cloc= in the +ornin- of $, >ul0 $(33, respondent !alaunan,
to-ether *ith Marcelo Mendo<a, *as on his *a0 to Manila fro+ Pan-asinan on board
his o*ner%t0pe ;eep. The Philippine Rabbit 1us *as li=e*ise bound for Manila fro+
!oncepcion, Tarlac. "t appro?i+atel0 @ilo+eter 2) of the North 5u<on ?press*a0 in
1aran-a0 5alan-an, Plaridel, 1ulacan, the t*o vehicles collided. The front ri-ht side
of the Philippine Rabbit 1us hit the rear left side of the ;eep causin- the latter to
+ove to the shoulder on the ri-ht and then fall on a ditch *ith *ater resultin- to
further e?tensive da+a-e. The bus veered to the left and stopped 9 to 3 +eters fro+
point of collision.
Respondent suffered +inor in;uries *hile his driver *as unhurt. He *as first brou-ht
for treat+ent to the Manila !entral #niversit0 Hospital in @aloo=an !it0 b0 Oscar
1uan, the conductor of the Philippine Rabbit 1us, and *as later transferred to the
Veterans Me+orial Medical !enter.
10 reason of such collision, a cri+inal case *as filed before the RT! of Malolos,
1ulacan, char-in- petitioner Manliclic *ith Rec=less I+prudence Resultin- in
Da+a-e to Propert0 *ith Ph0sical In;uries, doc=eted as !ri+. !ase No. 432%M%3(.
SubseAuentl0 on , Dece+ber $(($, respondent filed a co+plaint for da+a-es
a-ainst petitioners Manliclic and PR15I before the RT! of Da-upan !it0, doc=eted
as !ivil !ase No. D%$))34. The cri+inal case *as tried ahead of the civil case.
"+on- those *ho testified in the cri+inal case *ere respondent !alaunan, Marcelo
Mendo<a and Bernando Ra+os.
In the civil case .no* before this !ourt/, the parties ad+itted the follo*in-7
$. The parties a-reed on the capacit0 of the parties to sue and be sued as
*ell as the venue and the identities of the vehicles involved:
,. The identit0 of the drivers and the fact that the0 are dul0 licensed:
8. The date and place of the vehicular collision:
2. The e?tent of the in;uries suffered b0 plaintiff Modesto !alaunan and the
e?istence of the +edical certificate:
'. That both vehicles *ere -oin- to*ards the south: the private ;eep bein-
ahead of the bus:
4. That the *eather *as fair and the road *as *ell paved and strai-ht,
althou-h there *as a ditch on the ri-ht side *here the ;eep fell into.
8
Chen the civil case *as heard, counsel for respondent pra0ed that the transcripts of
steno-raphic notes .TSNs/
2
of the testi+onies of respondent !alaunan, Marcelo
Mendo<a and Bernando Ra+os in the cri+inal case be received in evidence in the
civil case in as +uch as these *itnesses are not available to testif0 in the civil case.
Brancisco Tuliao testified that his brother%in%la*, respondent !alaunan, left for abroad
so+eti+e in Nove+ber, $(3( and has not returned since then. Ro-elio Ra+os too=
the stand and said that his brother, Bernando Ra+os, left for "++an, >ordan, to
*or=. Rosalia Mendo<a testified that her husband, Marcelo Mendo<a, left their
residence to loo= for a ;ob. She narrated that she thou-ht her husband *ent to his
ho+eto*n in PaniAue, Tarlac, *hen he did not return after one +onth. She *ent to
her husband6s ho+eto*n to loo= for hi+ but she *as infor+ed that he did not -o
there.1awphil.net
The trial court subpoenaed the !ler= of !ourt of 1ranch 3, RT!, Malolos, 1ulacan,
the court *here !ri+inal !ase No. 432%M%3( *as tried, to brin- the TSNs of the
testi+onies of respondent !alaunan,
'
Marcelo Mendo<a
4
and Bernando Ra+os
9
in
said case, to-ether *ith other docu+entar0 evidence +ar=ed therein. Instead of the
1
1ranch !ler= of !ourt, it *as nriAue Santos &uevara, !ourt Interpreter, *ho
appeared before the court and identified the TSNs of the three afore%na+ed
*itnesses and other pertinent docu+ents he had brou-ht.
3
!ounsel for respondent
*anted to +ar= other TSNs and docu+ents fro+ the said cri+inal case to be
adopted in the instant case, but since the sa+e *ere not brou-ht to the trial court,
counsel for petitioners co+pro+ised that said TSNs and docu+ents could be offered
b0 counsel for respondent as rebuttal evidence.
Bor the defendants, petitioner Manliclic and bus conductor Oscar 1uan testified. The
TSN
(
of the testi+on0 of Donato &aniban, investi-ator of the PR15I, in !ri+inal
!ase No. 432%M%3( *as +ar=ed and allo*ed to be adopted in the civil case on the
-round that he *as alread0 dead.
Respondent further +ar=ed, a+on- other docu+ents, as rebuttal evidence, the
TSNs
$)
of the testi+onies of Donato &aniban, Oscar 1uan and petitioner Manliclic in
!ri+inal !ase No. 432%M%3(.
The disa-ree+ent arises fro+ the Auestion7 Cho is to be held liable for the collisionD
Respondent insists it *as petitioner Manliclic *ho should be liable *hile the latter is
resolute in sa0in- it *as the for+er *ho caused the s+ash up.
The versions of the parties are su++ari<ed b0 the trial court as follo*s7
The parties differed onl0 on the +anner the collision bet*een the t*o .,/ vehicles
too= place. "ccordin- to the plaintiff and his driver, the ;eep *as cruisin- at the speed
of 4) to 9) =ilo+eters per hour on the slo* lane of the e?press*a0 *hen the
Philippine Rabbit 1us overtoo= the ;eep and in the process of overta=in- the ;eep, the
Philippine Rabbit 1us hit the rear of the ;eep on the left side. "t the ti+e the
Philippine Rabbit 1us hit the ;eep, it *as about to overta=e the ;eep. In other *ords,
the Philippine Rabbit 1us *as still at the bac= of the ;eep *hen the ;eep *as hit.
Bernando Ra+os corroborated the testi+on0 of the plaintiff and Marcelo Mendo<a.
He said that he *as on another ;eep follo*in- the Philippine Rabbit 1us and the ;eep
of plaintiff *hen the incident too= place. He said, the ;eep of the plaintiff overtoo=
the+ and the said ;eep of the plaintiff *as follo*ed b0 the Philippine Rabbit 1us
*hich *as runnin- ver0 fast. The bus also overtoo= the ;eep in *hich he *as ridin-.
"fter that, he heard a loud sound. He sa* the ;eep of the plaintiff s*erved to the ri-ht
on a -rass0 portion of the road. The Philippine Rabbit 1us stopped and the0 overtoo=
the Philippine Rabbit 1us so that it could not +oved .sic/, +eanin- the0 stopped in
front of the Philippine Rabbit 1us. He testified that the ;eep of plaintiff s*erved to the
ri-ht because it *as bu+ped b0 the Philippine Rabbit bus fro+ behind.
1oth Mauricio Manliclic and his driver, Oscar 1uan ad+itted that the Philippine
Rabbit 1us bu+ped the ;eep in Auestion. Ho*ever, the0 e?plained that *hen the
Philippine Rabbit bus *as about to -o to the left lane to overta=e the ;eep, the latter
;eep s*erved to the left because it *as to overta=e another ;eep in front of it. Such
*as their testi+on0 before the RT! in Malolos in the cri+inal case and before this
!ourt in the instant case. EThus, *hich of the t*o versions of the +anner ho* the
collision too= place *as correct, *ould be deter+inative of *ho bet*een the t*o
drivers *as ne-li-ent in the operation of their respective vehicles.F
$$
Petitioner PR15I +aintained that it observed and e?ercised the dili-ence of a -ood
father of a fa+il0 in the selection and supervision of its e+plo0ee, specificall0
petitioner Manliclic.
On ,, >ul0 $((4, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of respondent !alaunan
and a-ainst petitioners Manliclic and PR15I. The dispositive portion of its decision
reads7
CHRBOR, ;ud-+ent is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a-ainst the
defendants orderin- the said defendants to pa0 plaintiff ;ointl0 and solidaril0 the
a+ount of P2),383.)) as actual da+a-es for the to*in- as *ell as the repair and the
+aterials used for the repair of the ;eep in Auestion: P$)),))).)) as +oral da+a-es
and another P$)),))).)) as e?e+plar0 da+a-es and P$',))).)) as attorne06s fees,
includin- appearance fees of the la*0er. In addition, the defendants are also to pa0
costs.
$,

Petitioners appealed the decision via Notice of "ppeal to the !ourt of "ppeals.
$8
In a decision dated ,3 Septe+ber ,))$, the !ourt of "ppeals, findin- no reversible
error in the decision of the trial court, affir+ed it in all respects.
$2
Petitioners are no* before us b0 *a0 of petition for revie* assailin- the decision of
the !ourt of "ppeals. The0 assi-n as errors the follo*in-7
I
TH !O#RT OB "PP"5S RRD ON " G#STION OB 5"C IN "BBIRMIN& TH
TRI"5 !O#RT6S G#STION"15 "DMISSION IN VIDN! OB TH TSN6s "ND
OTHR DO!#MNTS PRSNTD IN TH !RIMIN"5 !"S.
II
TH !O#RT OB "PP"5S RRD ON " G#STION OB 5"C IN "BBIRMIN& TH
TRI"5 !O#RT6S R5I"N! ON TH VRSION OB TH RSPONDNT ON HOC
TH "!!IDNT S#PPOSD5H O!!#RRD.
III
2
TH !O#RT OB "PP"5S RRD ON " G#STION OB 5"C IN "BBIRMIN& TH
TRI"5 !O#RT6S #NB"IR DISR&"RD OB HRIN PTITIONR PR156s
DBNS OB IR!IS OB D# DI5I&N! IN TH S5!TION "ND
S#PRVISION OB ITS MP5OHS.
IV
TH !O#RT OB "PP"5S RRD ON " G#STION OB 5"C IN "BBIRMIN& TH
TRI"5 !O#RT6S G#STION"15 "C"RD OB D"M"&S "ND "TTORNH6S B.
Cith the passin- a*a0 of respondent !alaunan durin- the pendenc0 of this appeal
*ith this !ourt, *e -ranted the Motion for the Substitution of Respondent filed b0 his
*ife, Mrs. Precila Jarate Vda. De !alaunan, and children, Vir-ilio !alaunan,
!ar+elita Hone0co+b, vel0n !alaunan, Mar=o !alaunan and 5i*a0*a0
!alaunan.
$'
In their Repl0 to respondent6s !o++ent, petitioners infor+ed this !ourt of a
Decision
$4
of the !ourt of "ppeals acAuittin- petitioner Manliclic of the char-e
$9
of
Rec=less I+prudence Resultin- in Da+a-e to Propert0 *ith Ph0sical In;uries
attachin- thereto a photocop0 thereof.
On the first assi-ned error, petitioners ar-ue that the TSNs containin- the testi+onies
of respondent !alaunan,
$3
Marcelo Mendo<a
$(
and Bernando Ra+os
,)
should not be
ad+itted in evidence for failure of respondent to co+pl0 *ith the reAuisites of Section
29, Rule $8) of the Rules of !ourt.
Bor Section 29, Rule $8)
,$
to appl0, the follo*in- reAuisites +ust be satisfied7 .a/ the
*itness is dead or unable to testif0: .b/ his testi+on0 or deposition *as -iven in a
for+er case or proceedin-, ;udicial or ad+inistrative, bet*een the sa+e parties or
those representin- the sa+e interests: .c/ the for+er case involved the sa+e sub;ect
as that in the present case, althou-h on different causes of action: .d/ the issue
testified to b0 the *itness in the for+er trial is the sa+e issue involved in the present
case: and .e/ the adverse part0 had an opportunit0 to cross%e?a+ine the *itness in
the for+er case.
,,

"d+ittedl0, respondent failed to sho* the concurrence of all the reAuisites set forth
b0 the Rules for a testi+on0 -iven in a for+er case or proceedin- to be ad+issible
as an e?ception to the hearsa0 rule. Petitioner PR15I, not bein- a part0 in !ri+inal
!ase No. 432%M%3(, had no opportunit0 to cross%e?a+ine the three *itnesses in said
case. The cri+inal case *as filed e?clusivel0 a-ainst petitioner Manliclic, petitioner
PR15I6s e+plo0ee. The cases dealin- *ith the subsidiar0 liabilit0 of e+plo0ers
unifor+l0 declare that, strictl0 spea=in-, the0 are not parties to the cri+inal cases
instituted a-ainst their e+plo0ees.
,8

Not*ithstandin- the fact that petitioner PR15I *as not a part0 in said cri+inal case,
the testi+onies of the three *itnesses are still ad+issible on the -round that
petitioner PR15I failed to ob;ect on their ad+issibilit0.
It is ele+entar0 that an ob;ection shall be +ade at the ti+e *hen an alle-ed
inad+issible docu+ent is offered in evidence: other*ise, the ob;ection shall be
treated as *aived, since the ri-ht to ob;ect is +erel0 a privile-e *hich the part0 +a0
*aive. Thus, a failure to e?cept to the evidence because it does not confor+ to the
statute is a *aiver of the provisions of the la*. ven assu+in- e? -ratia ar-u+enti
that these docu+ents are inad+issible for bein- hearsa0, but on account of failure to
ob;ect thereto, the sa+e +a0 be ad+itted and considered as sufficient to prove the
facts therein asserted.
,2
Hearsa0 evidence alone +a0 be insufficient to establish a
fact in a suit but, *hen no ob;ection is +ade thereto, it is, li=e an0 other evidence, to
be considered and -iven the i+portance it deserves.
,'
In the case at bar, petitioner PR15I did not ob;ect to the TSNs containin- the
testi+onies of respondent !alaunan, Marcelo Mendo<a and Bernando Ra+os in the
cri+inal case *hen the sa+e *ere offered in evidence in the trial court. In fact, the
TSNs of the testi+onies of !alaunan and Mendo<a *ere ad+itted b0 both
petitioners.
,4
Moreover, petitioner PR15I even offered in evidence the TSN
containin- the testi+on0 of Donato &aniban in the cri+inal case. If petitioner PR15I
ar-ues that the TSNs of the testi+onies of plaintiff6s *itnesses in the cri+inal case
should not be ad+itted in the instant case, *h0 then did it offer the TSN of the
testi+on0 of &aniban *hich *as -iven in the cri+inal caseD It appears that petitioner
PR15I *ants to have its ca=e and eat it too. It cannot ar-ue that the TSNs of the
testi+onies of the *itnesses of the adverse part0 in the cri+inal case should not be
ad+itted and at the sa+e ti+e insist that the TSN of the testi+on0 of the *itness for
the accused be ad+itted in its favor. To disallo* ad+ission in evidence of the TSNs
of the testi+onies of !alaunan, Marcelo Mendo<a and Bernando Ra+os in the
cri+inal case and to ad+it the TSN of the testi+on0 of &aniban *ould be unfair.
Ce do not subscribe to petitioner PR15I6s ar-u+ent that it *ill be denied due
process *hen the TSNs of the testi+onies of !alaunan, Marcelo Mendo<a and
Bernando Ra+os in the cri+inal case are to be ad+itted in the civil case. It is too late
for petitioner PR15I to raise denial of due process in relation to Section 29, Rule $8)
of the Rules of !ourt, as a -round for ob;ectin- to the ad+issibilit0 of the TSNs. Bor
failure to ob;ect at the proper ti+e, it *aived its ri-ht to ob;ect that the TSNs did not
co+pl0 *ith Section 29.
In Mangio v. Court of Appeals,
,9
this !ourt, throu-h "ssociate >ustice Re0nato S.
Puno,
,3
ad+itted in evidence a TSN of the testi+on0 of a *itness in another case
despite therein petitioner6s assertion that he *ould be denied due process. In
ad+ittin- the TSN, the !ourt ruled that the raisin- of denial of due process in relation
to Section 29, Rule $8) of the Rules of !ourt, as a -round for ob;ectin- to the
ad+issibilit0 of the TSN *as belatedl0 done. In so doin-, therein petitioner *aived his
ri-ht to ob;ect based on said -round.
3
Petitioners contend that the docu+ents in the cri+inal case should not have been
ad+itted in the instant civil case because Section 29 of Rule $8) refers onl0 to
Ktesti+on0 or deposition.K Ce find such contention to be untenable. Thou-h said
section spea=s onl0 of testi+on0 and deposition, it does not +ean that docu+ents
fro+ a for+er case or proceedin- cannot be ad+itted. Said docu+ents can be
ad+itted the0 bein- part of the testi+onies of *itnesses that have been ad+itted.
"ccordin-l0, the0 shall be -iven the sa+e *ei-ht as that to *hich the testi+on0 +a0
be entitled.
,(

On the second assi-ned error, petitioners contend that the version of petitioner
Manliclic as to ho* the accident occurred is +ore credible than respondent6s version.
The0 anchor their contention on the fact that petitioner Manliclic *as acAuitted b0 the
!ourt of "ppeals of the char-e of Rec=less I+prudence Resultin- in Da+a-e to
Propert0 *ith Ph0sical In;uries.
To be resolved b0 the !ourt is the effect of petitioner Manliclic6s acAuittal in the civil
case.
Bro+ the co+plaint, it can be -athered that the civil case for da+a-es *as one
arisin- fro+, or based on, Auasi%delict.
8)
Petitioner Manliclic *as sued for his
ne-li-ence or rec=less i+prudence in causin- the collision, *hile petitioner PR15I
*as sued for its failure to e?ercise the dili-ence of a -ood father in the selection and
supervision of its e+plo0ees, particularl0 petitioner Manliclic. The alle-ations read7
K2. That so+eti+e on >ul0 $,, $(33 at around 47,) ".M. plaintiff *as on
board the above%described +otor vehicle travellin- at a +oderate speed
alon- the North 5u<on ?press*a0 headin- South to*ards Manila to-ether
*ith M"R!5O MNDOJ", *ho *as then drivin- the sa+e:
K'. That appro?i+atel0 at =ilo+eter 2) of the North 5u<on ?press Ca0, the
above%described +otor vehicle *as suddenl0 bu+ped fro+ behind b0 a
Philippine Rabbit 1us *ith 1od0 No. 8'8 and *ith plate No. !VD 293 then
bein- driven b0 one Mauricio Manliclic of San >ose, !oncepcion, Tarlac,
*ho *as then travellin- rec=lessl0 at a ver0 fast speed and had apparentl0
lost control of his vehicle:
K4. That as a result of the i+pact of the collision the above%described +otor
vehicle *as forced off the North 5u<on ?press Ca0 to*ards the ri-htside
*here it fell on its driver6s side on a ditch, and that as a conseAuence, the
above%described +otor vehicle *hich +a0be valued at I&HTH
THO#S"ND PSOS .P3),)))/ *as rendered a total *rec= as sho*n b0
pictures to be presented durin- the pre%trial and trial of this case:
K9. That also as a result of said incident, plaintiff sustained bodil0 in;uries
*hich co+pounded plaintiff6s frail ph0sical condition and reAuired his
hospitali<ation fro+ >ul0 $,, $(33 up to and until >ul0 ,,, $(33, cop0 of the
+edical certificate is hereto attached as "nne? K"K and +ade an inte-ral
part hereof:
K3. That the vehicular collision resultin- in the total *rec=a-e of the above%
described +otor vehicle as *ell as bodil0 .sic/ sustained b0 plaintiff, *as
solel0 due to the rec=less i+prudence of the defendant driver Mauricio
Manliclic *ho drove his Philippine Rabbit 1us No. 8'8 at a fast speed
*ithout due re-ard or observance of e?istin- traffic rules and re-ulations:
K(. That defendant Philippine Rabbit 1us 5ine !orporation failed to e?ercise
the dili-ence of a -ood father of .sic/ fa+il0 in the selection and supervision
of its drivers: ? ? ?K
8$
!an Manliclic still be held liable for the collision and be found ne-li-ent
not*ithstandin- the declaration of the !ourt of "ppeals that there *as an absence of
ne-li-ence on his partD
In e?oneratin- petitioner Manliclic in the cri+inal case, the !ourt of "ppeals said7
To the follo*in- findin-s of the court a Auo, to *it7 that accused%appellant *as
ne-li-ent K*hen the bus he *as drivin- bu+ped the ;eep fro+ behindK: that Kthe
pro?i+ate cause of the accident *as his havin- driven the bus at a -reat speed *hile
closel0 follo*in- the ;eepK: ? ? ?
Ce do not a-ree.
The s*ervin- of !alaunan6s ;eep *hen it tried to overta=e the vehicle in front of it *as
be0ond the control of accused%appellant.
? ? ? ?
"bsent evidence of ne-li-ence, therefore, accused%appellant cannot be held liable
for Rec=less I+prudence Resultin- in Da+a-e to Propert0 *ith Ph0sical In;uries as
defined in "rticle 84' of the Revised Penal !ode.
8,
Bro+ the fore-oin- declaration of the !ourt of "ppeals, it appears that petitioner
Manliclic *as acAuitted not on reasonable doubt, but on the -round that he is not the
author of the act co+plained of *hich is based on Section ,.b/ of Rule $$$ of the
Rules of !ri+inal Procedure *hich reads7
.b/ ?tinction of the penal action does not carr0 *ith it e?tinction of the civil, unless
the e?tinction proceeds fro+ a declaration in a final ;ud-+ent that the fact fro+ *hich
the civil +i-ht arise did not e?ist.
4
In spite of said rulin-, petitioner Manliclic can still be held liable for the +ishap. The
afore%Auoted section applies onl0 to a civil action arisin- fro+ cri+e or e? delicto and
not to a civil action arisin- fro+ Auasi%delict or culpa aAuiliana. The e?tinction of civil
liabilit0 referred to in Par. .e/ of Section 8, Rule $$$ Eno* Section , .b/ of Rule $$$F,
refers e?clusivel0 to civil liabilit0 founded on "rticle $)) of the Revised Penal !ode,
*hereas the civil liabilit0 for the sa+e act considered as a Auasi%delict onl0 and not
as a cri+e is not e?tin-uished even b0 a declaration in the cri+inal case that the
cri+inal act char-ed has not happened or has not been co++itted b0 the accused.
88
" Auasi%delict or culpa aAuiliana is a separate le-al institution under the !ivil !ode
*ith a substantivit0 all its o*n, and individualit0 that is entirel0 apart and independent
fro+ a delict or cri+e L a distinction e?ists bet*een the civil liabilit0 arisin- fro+ a
cri+e and the responsibilit0 for Auasi%delicts or culpa e?tra%contractual. The sa+e
ne-li-ence causin- da+a-es +a0 produce civil liabilit0 arisin- fro+ a cri+e under
the Penal !ode, or create an action for Auasi%delicts or culpa e?tra%contractual under
the !ivil !ode.
82
It is no* settled that acAuittal of the accused, even if based on a
findin- that he is not -uilt0, does not carr0 *ith it the e?tinction of the civil liabilit0
based on Auasi delict.
8'

In other *ords, if an accused is acAuitted based on reasonable doubt on his -uilt, his
civil liabilit0 arisin- fro+ the cri+e +a0 be proved b0 preponderance of evidence
onl0. Ho*ever, if an accused is acAuitted on the basis that he *as not the author of
the act or o+ission co+plained of .or that there is declaration in a final ;ud-+ent that
the fact fro+ *hich the civil +i-ht arise did not e?ist/, said acAuittal closes the door to
civil liabilit0 based on the cri+e or e? delicto. In this second instance, there bein- no
cri+e or delict to spea= of, civil liabilit0 based thereon or e? delicto is not possible. In
this case, a civil action, if an0, +a0 be instituted on -rounds other than the delict
co+plained of.
"s re-ards civil liabilit0 arisin- fro+ Auasi%delict or culpa aAuiliana, sa+e *ill not be
e?tin-uished b0 an acAuittal, *hether it be on -round of reasonable doubt or that
accused *as not the author of the act or o+ission co+plained of .or that there is
declaration in a final ;ud-+ent that the fact fro+ *hich the civil liabilit0 +i-ht arise did
not e?ist/. The responsibilit0 arisin- fro+ fault or ne-li-ence in a quasi-delict is
entirel0 separate and distinct fro+ the civil liabilit0 arisin- fro+ ne-li-ence under the
Penal !ode.
84
"n acAuittal or conviction in the cri+inal case is entirel0 irrelevant in
the civil case
89
based on Auasi%delict or culpa aAuiliana.
Petitioners as= us to -ive credence to their version of ho* the collision occurred and
to disre-ard that of respondent6s. Petitioners insist that *hile the PR15I bus *as in
the process of overta=in- respondent6s ;eep, the latter, *ithout *arnin-, suddenl0
s*erved to the left .fast/ lane in order to overta=e another ;eep ahead of it, thus
causin- the collision.
"s a -eneral rule, Auestions of fact +a0 not be raised in a petition for revie*. The
factual findin-s of the trial court, especiall0 *hen affir+ed b0 the appellate court, are
bindin- and conclusive on the Supre+e !ourt.
83
Not bein- a trier of facts, this !ourt
*ill not allo* a revie* thereof unless7
.$/ the conclusion is a findin- -rounded entirel0 on speculation, sur+ise and
con;ecture: .,/ the inference +ade is +anifestl0 +ista=en: .8/ there is -rave abuse of
discretion: .2/ the ;ud-+ent is based on a +isapprehension of facts: .'/ the findin-s
of fact are conflictin-: .4/ the !ourt of "ppeals *ent be0ond the issues of the case
and its findin-s are contrar0 to the ad+issions of both appellant and appellees: .9/
the findin-s of fact of the !ourt of "ppeals are contrar0 to those of the trial court: .3/
said findin-s of fact are conclusions *ithout citation of specific evidence on *hich
the0 are based: .(/ the facts set forth in the petition as *ell as in the petitionerMs +ain
and repl0 briefs are not disputed b0 the respondents: and .$)/ the findin-s of fact of
the !ourt of "ppeals are pre+ised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted b0 the evidence on record.
8(
"fter -oin- over the evidence on record, *e do not find an0 of the e?ceptions that
*ould *arrant our departure fro+ the -eneral rule. Ce full0 a-ree in the findin- of the
trial court, as affir+ed b0 the !ourt of "ppeals, that it *as petitioner Manliclic *ho
*as ne-li-ent in drivin- the PR15I bus *hich *as the cause of the collision. In -ivin-
credence to the version of the respondent, the trial court has this sa07
? ? ? Thus, *hich of the t*o versions of the +anner ho* the collision too= place *as
correct, *ould be deter+inative of *ho bet*een the t*o drivers *as ne-li-ent in the
operation of their respective vehicle.
In this re-ard, it should be noted that in the state+ent of Mauricio Manliclic .?h. $'/
-iven to the Philippine Rabbit Investi-ator !V !abadin- no +ention *as +ade b0
hi+ about the fact that the driver of the ;eep *as overta=in- another ;eep *hen the
collision too= place. The alle-ation that another ;eep *as bein- overta=en b0 the ;eep
of !alaunan *as testified to b0 hi+ onl0 in !ri+. !ase No. 432%M%3( before the
Re-ional Trial !ourt in Malolos, 1ulacan and before this !ourt. videntl0, it *as a
product of an afterthou-ht on the part of Mauricio Manliclic so that he could e?plain
*h0 he should not be held responsible for the incident. His atte+pt to veer a*a0 fro+
the truth *as also apparent *hen it *ould be considered that in his state+ent -iven
to the Philippine Rabbit Investi-ator !V !abadin- .?h. $'/, he alle-ed that the
Philippine Rabbit 1us bu+ped the ;eep of !alaunan *hile the Philippine Rabbit 1us
*as behind the said ;eep. In his testi+on0 before the Re-ional Trial !ourt in Malolos,
1ulacan as *ell as in this !ourt, he alle-ed that the Philippine Rabbit 1us *as
alread0 on the left side of the ;eep *hen the collision too= place. Bor this
inconsistenc0 bet*een his state+ent and testi+on0, his e?planation re-ardin- the
+anner of ho* the collision bet*een the ;eep and the bus too= place should be ta=en
*ith caution. It +i-ht be true that in the state+ent of Oscar 1uan -iven to the
Philippine Rabbit Investi-ator !V !abadin-, it *as +entioned b0 the for+er that the
;eep of plaintiff *as in the act of overta=in- another ;eep *hen the collision bet*een
the latter ;eep and the Philippine Rabbit 1us too= place. 1ut the fact, ho*ever, that
his state+ent *as -iven on >ul0 $', $(33, one da0 after Mauricio Manliclic -ave his
state+ent should not escape attention. The one%da0 difference bet*een the -ivin- of
5
the t*o state+ents *ould be si-nificant enou-h to entertain the possibilit0 of Oscar
1uan havin- received le-al advise before -ivin- his state+ent. "part fro+ that, as
bet*een his state+ent and the state+ent of Manliclic hi+self, the state+ent of the
latter should prevail. 1esides, in his "ffidavit of March $), $(3(, .?h. $2/, the
unreliabilit0 of the state+ent of Oscar 1uan .?h. $8/ -iven to !V !abadin- rear its
Ku-l0 headK *hen he did not +ention in said affidavit that the ;eep of !alaunan *as
tr0in- to overta=e another ;eep *hen the collision bet*een the ;eep in Auestion and
the Philippine Rabbit bus too= place.
? ? ? ?
If one *ould believe the testi+on0 of the defendant, Mauricio Manliclic, and his
conductor, Oscar 1uan, that the Philippine Rabbit 1us *as alread0 so+e*hat
parallel to the ;eep *hen the collision too= place, the point of collision on the ;eep
should have been so+e*hat on the left side thereof rather than on its rear.
Burther+ore, the ;eep should have fallen on the road itself rather than havin- been
forced off the road. #seless, li=e*ise to e+phasi<e that the Philippine Rabbit *as
runnin- ver0 fast as testified to b0 Ra+os *hich *as not controverted b0 the
defendants.
2)
Havin- ruled that it *as petitioner Manliclic6s ne-li-ence that caused the s+ash up,
there arises the ;uris tantu+ presu+ption that the e+plo0er is ne-li-ent, rebuttable
onl0 b0 proof of observance of the dili-ence of a -ood father of a fa+il0.
2$
#nder
"rticle ,$3)
2,
of the Ne* !ivil !ode, *hen an in;ur0 is caused b0 the ne-li-ence of
the e+plo0ee, there instantl0 arises a presu+ption of la* that there *as ne-li-ence
on the part of the +aster or e+plo0er either in the selection of the servant or
e+plo0ee, or in supervision over hi+ after selection or both. The liabilit0 of the
e+plo0er under "rticle ,$3) is direct and i++ediate: it is not conditioned upon prior
recourse a-ainst the ne-li-ent e+plo0ee and a prior sho*in- of the insolvenc0 of
such e+plo0ee. Therefore, it is incu+bent upon the private respondents to prove that
the0 e?ercised the dili-ence of a -ood father of a fa+il0 in the selection and
supervision of their e+plo0ee.
28
In the case at bar, petitioner PR15I +aintains that it had sho*n that it e?ercised the
reAuired dili-ence in the selection and supervision of its e+plo0ees, particularl0
petitioner Manliclic. In the +atter of selection, it sho*ed the screenin- process that
petitioner Manliclic under*ent before he beca+e a re-ular driver. "s to the e?ercise
of due dili-ence in the supervision of its e+plo0ees, it ar-ues that presence of read0
investi-ators .&aniban and !abadin-/ is sufficient proof that it e?ercised the reAuired
due dili-ence in the supervision of its e+plo0ees.
In the selection of prospective e+plo0ees, e+plo0ers are reAuired to e?a+ine the+
as to their Aualifications, e?perience and service records. In the supervision of
e+plo0ees, the e+plo0er +ust for+ulate standard operatin- procedures, +onitor
their i+ple+entation and i+pose disciplinar0 +easures for the breach thereof. To
fend off vicarious liabilit0, e+plo0ers +ust sub+it concrete proof, includin-
docu+entar0 evidence, that the0 co+plied *ith ever0thin- that *as incu+bent on
the+.
22

In Metro Manila Transit !orporation v. !ourt of "ppeals,
2'
it *as e?plained that7
Due dili-ence in the supervision of e+plo0ees on the other hand, includes the
for+ulation of suitable rules and re-ulations for the -uidance of e+plo0ees and the
issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons
*ith *ho+ the e+plo0er has relations throu-h his or its e+plo0ees and the
i+position of necessar0 disciplinar0 +easures upon e+plo0ees in case of breach or
as +a0 be *arranted to ensure the perfor+ance of acts indispensable to the
business of and beneficial to their e+plo0er. To this, *e add that actual
i+ple+entation and +onitorin- of consistent co+pliance *ith said rules should be
the constant concern of the e+plo0er, actin- throu-h dependable supervisors *ho
should re-ularl0 report on their supervisor0 functions.
In order that the defense of due dili-ence in the selection and supervision of
e+plo0ees +a0 be dee+ed sufficient and plausible, it is not enou-h to e+ptil0 invo=e
the e?istence of said co+pan0 -uidelines and policies on hirin- and supervision. "s
the ne-li-ence of the e+plo0ee -ives rise to the presu+ption of ne-li-ence on the
part of the e+plo0er, the latter has the burden of provin- that it has been dili-ent not
onl0 in the selection of e+plo0ees but also in the actual supervision of their *or=.
The +ere alle-ation of the e?istence of hirin- procedures and supervisor0 policies,
*ithout an0thin- +ore, is decidedl0 not sufficient to overco+e such presu+ption.
Ce e+phaticall0 reiterate our holdin-, as a *arnin- to all e+plo0ers, that Kthe
for+ulation of various co+pan0 policies on safet0 *ithout sho*in- that the0 *ere
bein- co+plied *ith is not sufficient to e?e+pt petitioner fro+ liabilit0 arisin- fro+
ne-li-ence of its e+plo0ees. It is incu+bent upon petitioner to sho* that in recruitin-
and e+plo0in- the errin- driver the recruit+ent procedures and co+pan0 policies on
efficienc0 and safet0 *ere follo*ed.K ? ? ?.
The trial court found that petitioner PR15I e?ercised the dili-ence of a -ood father of
a fa+il0 in the selection but not in the supervision of its e+plo0ees. It e?pounded as
follo*s7
Bro+ the evidence of the defendants, it see+s that the Philippine Rabbit 1us 5ines
has a ver0 -ood procedure of recruitin- its driver as *ell as in the +aintenance of its
vehicles. There is no evidence thou-h that it is as -ood in the supervision of its
personnel. There has been no iota of evidence introduced b0 it that there are rules
pro+ul-ated b0 the bus co+pan0 re-ardin- the safe operation of its vehicle and in
the *a0 its driver should +ana-e and operate the vehicles assi-ned to the+. There
is no sho*in- that so+ebod0 in the bus co+pan0 has been e+plo0ed to oversee
ho* its driver should behave *hile operatin- their vehicles *ithout courtin- incidents
si+ilar to the herein case. In re-ard to supervision, it is not difficult to observe that
the Philippine Rabbit 1us 5ines, Inc. has been ne-li-ent as an e+plo0er and it
6
should be +ade responsible for the acts of its e+plo0ees, particularl0 the driver
involved in this case.
Ce a-ree. The presence of read0 investi-ators after the occurrence of the accident is
not enou-h to e?e+pt petitioner PR15I fro+ liabilit0 arisin- fro+ the ne-li-ence of
petitioner Manliclic. Sa+e does not co+pl0 *ith the -uidelines set forth in the cases
above%+entioned. The presence of the investi-ators after the accident is not enou-h
supervision. Re-ular supervision of e+plo0ees, that is, prior to an0 accident, should
have been sho*n and established. This, petitioner failed to do. The lac= of
supervision can further be seen b0 the fact that there is onl0 one set of +anual
containin- the rules and re-ulations for all the drivers of PR15I.
24
Ho* then can all
the drivers of petitioner PR15I =no* and be continuall0 infor+ed of the rules and
re-ulations *hen onl0 one +anual is bein- lent to all the driversD
Bor failure to adduce proof that it e?ercised the dili-ence of a -ood father of a fa+il0
in the selection and supervision of its e+plo0ees, petitioner PR15I is held solidaril0
responsible for the da+a-es caused b0 petitioner Manliclic6s ne-li-ence.
Ce no* -o to the a*ard of da+a-es. The trial court correctl0 a*arded the a+ount of
P2),383.)) as actual da+a-es representin- the a+ount paid b0 respondent for the
to*in- and repair of his ;eep.
29
"s re-ards the a*ards for +oral and e?e+plar0
da+a-es, sa+e, under the circu+stances, +ust be +odified. The P$)),))).))
a*arded b0 the trial court as +oral da+a-es +ust be reduced to P'),))).)).
23

?e+plar0 da+a-es are i+posed b0 *a0 of e?a+ple or correction for the public
-ood.
2(
The a+ount a*arded b0 the trial court +ust, li=e*ise, be lo*ered to
P'),))).)).
')
The a*ard of P$',))).)) for attorne06s fees and e?penses of liti-ation
is in order and authori<ed b0 la*.
'$
CHRBOR, pre+ises considered, the instant petition for revie* is DNID. The
decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"%&.R. !V No. ''()( is "BBIRMD *ith the
MODIBI!"TION that .$/ the a*ard of +oral da+a-es shall be reduced to
P'),))).)): and .,/ the a*ard of e?e+plar0 da+a-es shall be lo*ered to
P'),))).)). !osts a-ainst petitioners.
SO ORDRD.
7