Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
643
644
645
final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did
not exist), said acquittal closes the door to civil liability based on
the crime or ex delicto. In this second instance, there being no
crime or delict to speak of, civil liability based thereon or ex
delicto is not possible. In this case, a civil action, if any, may be
instituted on grounds other than the delict complained of.
Pleadings and Practice; As a general rule, questions of fact
may not be raised in a petition for review; Exceptions.—As a
general rule, questions of fact may not be raised in a petition for
review. The factual findings of the trial court, especially when
affirmed by the appellate court, are binding and conclusive on the
Supreme Court. Not being a trier of facts, this Court will not
allow a review thereof unless: (1) the conclusion is a finding
grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the
inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of
discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the Court of
Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees; (7) the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the
trial court; (8) said findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts
set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record.
646
both. The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and
immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the
negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such
employee. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the private
respondents to prove that they exercised the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and supervision of their
employee.
647
CHICONAZARIO, J.:
1
Assailed before Us is the decision of the Court of Appeals
in CAG.R.
2
CV No. 55909 which affirmed in toto the
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan
City, Branch 42, in Civil Case No. D10086, finding
petitioners Mauricio Manliclic and Philippine Rabbit Bus
Lines, Inc. (PRBLI) solidarily liable to pay damages and
attorney’s fees to respondent Modesto Calaunan.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
The vehicles involved in this case are: (1) Philippine
Rabbit Bus No. 353 with plate number CVD478, owned by
petitioner PRBLI and driven by petitioner Mauricio
Manliclic; and (2) ownertype jeep with plate number PER
290, owned by respondent Modesto Calaunan and driven by
Marcelo Mendoza.
At around 6:00 to 7:00 o’clock in the morning of 12 July
1988, respondent Calaunan, together with Marcelo
Mendoza, was on his way to Manila from Pangasinan on
board his ownertype jeep. The Philippine Rabbit Bus was
likewise bound for Manila from Concepcion, Tarlac. At
approximately Kilometer 40 of the North Luzon
Expressway in Barangay Lalangan, Plaridel, Bulacan, the
two vehicles collided. The front right side of the Philippine
Rabbit Bus hit the rear left
_______________
648
_______________
649
_______________
650
“The parties differed only on the manner the collision between the
two (2) vehicles took place. According to the plaintiff and his
driver, the jeep was cruising at the speed of 60 to 70 kilometers
per hour on the slow lane of the expressway when the Philippine
Rabbit Bus overtook the jeep and in the process of overtaking the
jeep, the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the rear of the jeep on the left
side. At the time the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the jeep, it was
about to overtake the jeep. In other words, the Philippine Rabbit
Bus was still at the back of the jeep when the jeep was hit.
Fernando Ramos corroborated the testimony of the plaintiff and
Marcelo Mendoza. He said that he was on another jeep following
the Philippine Rabbit Bus and the jeep of plaintiff when the
incident took place. He said, the jeep of the plaintiff overtook
them and the said jeep of the plaintiff was followed by the
Philippine Rabbit Bus which was running very fast. The bus also
overtook the jeep in which he was riding. After that, he heard a
loud sound. He saw the jeep of the plaintiff swerved to the
_______________
9 Exh. “19”.
10 Exhs. “M” to “P.”
651
_______________
652
II
IV
_______________
14 CA Rollo, p. 193.
15 Rollo, pp. 5962, 88.
653
_______________
654
_______________
23 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 147703, 14 April
2004, 427 SCRA 456, 471.
24 Tison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121027, 31 July 1997, 276 SCRA
582.
25 TopWeld Manufacturing, Inc. v. ECED, S.A., G.R. No. 44944, 9
August 1985, 138 SCRA 118.
655
_______________
656
_______________
29 People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 116918, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 259,
272.
30 Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasidelict and is governed by the
provision of this Chapter.
657
_______________
658
“To the following findings of the court a quo, to wit: that accused
appellant was negligent “when the bus he was driving bumped
the jeep from behind;” that “the proximate cause of the accident
was his having driven the bus at a great speed while closely
following the jeep;” x x x We do not agree.
The swerving of Calaunan’s jeep when it tried to overtake the
vehicle in front of it was beyond the control of accusedappellant.
xxxx
Absent evidence of negligence, therefore, accusedappellant
cannot be held liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Damage to Property with Physical Injuries as defined in Article
32
365 of the Revised Penal Code.”
“(b) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction
of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a
final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did
not exist.”
In spite of said ruling, petitioner Manliclic can still be held
liable for the mishap. The aforequoted section applies only
to a civil action arising from crime or ex delicto and not to a
civil action arising from quasidelict or culpa aquiliana.
The extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of
Section 3, Rule 111 [now Section 2 (b) of Rule 111], refers
exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same
act considered as
_______________
659
_______________
33 Elcano v. Hill, G.R. No. L24803, 26 May 1977, 77 SCRA 98, 106.
34 Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74761, 6
November 1990, 191 SCRA 195, 203204.
35 Heirs of the Late Guaring, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 274, 279;
269 SCRA 283, 288 (1997).
660
36 McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68102 and No. 68103, 16
July 1992, 211 SCRA 517, 536.
37 Castillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 48541, 21 August 1989, 176 SCRA 591,
598.
38 Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. John Bordman Ltd. of Iloilo, Inc.,
G.R. No. 159831, 14 October 2005, 473 SCRA 151, 162.
661
_______________
39 Sigaya v. Mayuga, G.R. No. 143254, 18 August 2005, 467 SCRA 341, 352353.
662
_______________
40 Rollo, pp. 4750.
41 Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
104408, 21 June 1993, 223 SCRA 521, 539.
42 Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not
only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
663
_______________
xxxx
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
xxxx
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage.
43 Dulay v. Court of Appeals, 313 Phil. 8, 23; 243 SCRA 220, 230 (1995).
664
_______________
665
VOL. 512, JANUARY 25, 2007 665
Manliclic vs. Calaunan
_______________
666
_______________
47 Exhs. “C” to “C4” and “F.” Records, pp. 232236, 288. Article 2219
(2), Civil Code.
48 Kapalaran Bus Line v. Coronado, G.R. No. 85331, 25 August 1989,
176 SCRA 792, 803.
49 Article 2229, Civil Code.
50 Tiu v. Arriesgado, G.R. No. 138060, 1 September 2004, 437 SCRA
426, 451; Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
120553, 17 June 1997, 273 SCRA 562, 574575.
51 Article 2208 (1), (2) and (5), Civil Code.
667
——o0o——