Manliclic v.

Calaunan

Ponente: Chico-Nazario Third Division Nature: Petition for review on certiorari FACTS: 1. The vehicles involved in this case are: (1) Philippine Rabbit us owned b! petitioner PR "# and driven b! petitioner $auricio $anliclic% and (&) owner-t!pe 'eep owned b! respondent $odesto Calaunan and driven b! $arcelo $endoza 2. (t appro)i*atel! +ilo*eter ,- of the North "uzon .)presswa! in aran/a! "alan/an0 Plaridel0 ulacan0 the two vehicles collided1 - The front ri/ht side of the Philippine Rabbit us 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 with water resultin/ to further e)tensive da*a/e1 - Respondent suffered *inor in'uries while his driver was unhurt1 3. ! reason of such collision0 a cri*inal case was filed char/in/ petitioner $anliclic with Rec2less #*prudence Resultin/ in Da*a/e to Propert! with Ph!sical #n'uries1 4. 3ubse4uentl! on & Dece*ber 15510 respondent filed a co*plaint for da*a/es a/ainst petitioners $anliclic and PR "# 5. The cri*inal case was tried ahead of the civil case1 6. 6hen the civil case was heard0 counsel for respondent pra!ed that the transcripts of steno/raphic notes (T3Ns) of the testi*onies in the cri*inal case be received in evidence in the civil case in as *uch as these witnesses are not available to testif! in the civil case1 7. The versions of the parties are su**arized b! the trial court as follows: Respondent7s version: - (ccordin/ to the respondent and his driver0 the 'eep was cruisin/ at the speed of 8- to 92ilo*eters per hour on the slow lane of the e)presswa! when the Philippine Rabbit us overtoo2 the 'eep and in the process of overta2in/ the 'eep0 the Philippine Rabbit us hit the rear of the 'eep on the left side1 - (t the ti*e the Philippine Rabbit us hit the 'eep0 it was about to overta2e the 'eep1 #n other words0 the Philippine Rabbit us was still at the bac2 of the 'eep when the 'eep was hit1 - :ernando Ra*os corroborated the testi*on! of and $arcelo $endoza1 ;e said that he was on another 'eep followin/ the Philippine Rabbit us and the 'eep of plaintiff when the incident too2 place1 ;e testified that the 'eep of plaintiff swerved to the ri/ht because it was bu*ped b! the Philippine Rabbit bus fro* behind1 Petitioner7s version: - The petitioner e)plained that when the Philippine Rabbit bus was about to /o to the left lane to overta2e the 'eep0 the latter 'eep swerved to the left because it was to overta2e another 'eep in front of it1 - Petitioner PR "# *aintained that it observed and e)ercised the dili/ence of a /ood father of a fa*il! in the selection and supervision of its e*plo!ee 8. RTC ruled in favor of the respondent1 C( found no reversible error and affir*ed the RTC7s decision1 ISSUES: 11 6hether the T3Ns fro* the cri*inal case *a! be ad*itted in evidence for the civil case1 &1 6hether the petitioner0 $anliclic0 *a! be held liable for the collision and be found ne/li/ent notwithstandin/ the declaration of the C( in the cri*inal case that there was an absence of ne/li/ence on his part1 <1 6hether the petitioner0 PR "#0 e)ercised due dili/ence and supervision of its e*plo!ee1 ;."D: The petitioner0 $anliclic0 is civill! liable for the da*a/es for his ne/li/ence or rec2less i*prudence based on 4uasi-delict1 The PR "# is held solidaril! liable for the da*a/es caused b! the petitioner $anliclic7s ne/li/ence1 11 (d*issibilit! of the T3Ns Petitioner7s contention:

Court:

The T3Ns should not be ad*itted to evidence for failure to co*pl! with the re4uisites of 3ec1 ,90 Rule 1<- of the R=C The petitioner0 PR "#0 had no opportunit! to cross e)a*ine the witnesses because the cri*inal case was filed e)clusivel! a/ainst $anliclic1 (d*ission of the T3Ns will deprive the petitioner of due process1 The testi*onies are still ad*issible on the /round that the petitioner failed to ob'ect on their ad*issibilit!1 :ailure to ob'ect to the inclusion of the evidence is a waiver on the provision of the law1 #n addition0 the petitioner even offered in evidence the T3N containin/ the testi*on! of >aniban1 The court disa/rees that it would deprive the petitioner of due process1 :or the failure of the petitioner to ob'ect at the proper ti*e0 it waived its ri/ht to ob'ect for the non co*pliance with the R=C1

&1 Civil liabilit! arisin/ fro* cri*e v1 ?uasi-delict@Culpa (c4uiliana Petitioner: - The version of the petitioner deserves *ore credit as the petitioner was alread! ac4uitted b! the C( of the char/e of Rec2less i*prudence resultin/ in da*a/e to propert! with ph!sical in'uries1 Court: - :ro* the co*plaint0 it can be /athered that the civil case for da*a/es was one arisin/ fro* or based on 4uasi-delict: Petitioner $anliclic was sued for his ne/li/ence or rec2less i*prudence in causin/ the collision0 while petitioner PR "# was sued for its failure to e)ercise the dili/ence of a /ood father in the selection and supervision of its e*plo!ees it appears that petitioner $anliclic was ac4uitted not on reasonable doubt0 but on the /round that he is not the author of the act co*plained of which is based on 3ection &(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Cri*inal Procedure which reads: (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.

#n spite of said rulin/0 petitioner $anliclic can still be held liable for the *ishap1 The afore-4uoted section applies onl! to a civil action arisin/ fro* cri*e or e) delicto and not to a civil action arisin/ fro* 4uasi-delict or culpa a4uiliana1 The e)tinction of civil liabilit! referred to in the 4uoted provision0 refers e)clusivel! to civil liabilit! founded on (rticle 1-- of the Revised Penal Code0 whereas the civil liabilit! for the sa*e act considered as a 4uasi-delict onl! and not as a cri*e is not e)tin/uished even b! a declaration in the cri*inal case that the cri*inal act char/ed has not happened or has not been co**itted b! the accused1

#n su*0 the court distin/uished civil liabilit! arisin/ fro* a cri*e and that arisin/ fro* 4uasi-delict:

C#A#" "#( #"#TB (R#3#N> :R=$ ( CR#$. (a) if an accused is ac4uitted based on reasonable doubt on his /uilt0 his civil liabilit! arisin/ fro* the cri*e *a! be proved b! preponderance of evidence onl!1 (b) if an accused is ac4uitted on the basis that he was 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* which the civil *i/ht arise did not e)ist)0 said ac4uittal closes the door to civil liabilit! based on the cri*e or e) delicto1

C#A#" "#( #"#TB (R#3#N> :R=$ ?C(3#-D."#CT - ( 4uasi-delict or culpa a4uiliana is a separate le/al institution under the Civil Code with a substantivit! all its own0 and individualit! that is entirel! apart and independent fro* a delict or cri*e1 - The sa*e ne/li/ence causin/ da*a/es *a! produce civil liabilit! arisin/ fro* a cri*e under the Penal Code0 or create an action for 4uasi-delicts or culpa e)tra-contractual under the Civil

Code1 The acquittal of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is not guilty, does not ca y !ith it the e"tinction of the civil liability based on quasi delict. civil liabilit! arisin/ fro* 4uasi-delict or culpa a4uiliana0 sa*e will not be e)tin/uished b! an ac4uittal0 whether it be on /round of reasonable doubt or that accused was 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* which the civil liabilit! *i/ht arise did not e)ist)1 (n ac4uittal or conviction in the cri*inal case is entirel! irrelevant in the civil case based on 4uasidelict or culpa a4uiliana1 The petitioners ur/e the court to /ive *ore credence to their version of the stor! however0 as the! constitute a 4uestion of fact0 it *a! not be raised as a sub'ect for a petition for review1 :indin/s of the trial court and appellate court are bindin/ on the 3upre*e Court1 The testi*on! of the petitioner about the 'eep of the respondent overta2in/ another vehicle in the cri*inal case was not consistent with what he /ave to the investi/ator which is evidentl! a product of an after-thou/ht #f one would believe the testi*on! of the defendant0 $auricio $anliclic0 and his conductor0 =scar uan0 that the Philippine Rabbit us was alread! so*ewhat parallel to the 'eep when the collision too2 place0 the point of collision on the 'eep should have been so*ewhat on the left side thereof rather than on its rear1 :urther*ore0 the 'eep should have fallen on the road itself rather than havin/ been forced off the road1

<1 PR "#7s liabilit! - Cnder (rticle &1D- of the New Civil Code0 when an in'ur! is caused b! the ne/li/ence of the e*plo!ee0 there instantl! arises a presu*ption of law that there was ne/li/ence on the part of the *aster or e*plo!er either in the selection of the servant or e*plo!ee0 or in supervision over hi* after selection or both1 - The liabilit! of the e*plo!er under (rticle &1D- is direct and i**ediate% it is not conditioned upon prior recourse a/ainst the ne/li/ent e*plo!ee and a prior showin/ of the insolvenc! of such e*plo!ee1 Therefore0 it is incu*bent upon the private respondents to prove that the! e)ercised the dili/ence of a /ood father of a fa*il! in the selection and supervision of their e*plo!ee1 Petitioner7s contention: - PR "# *aintains that it had shown that it e)ercised the re4uired dili/ence in the selection and supervision of its e*plo!ees - #n the *atter of selection0 it showed the screenin/ process that petitioner $anliclic underwent before he beca*e a re/ular driver1 - (s to the e)ercise of due dili/ence in the supervision of its e*plo!ees0 it ar/ues that presence of read! investi/ators is sufficient proof that it e)ercised the re4uired due dili/ence in the supervision of its e*plo!ees
Court:

#n the selection of prospective e*plo!ees0 e*plo!ers are re4uired to e)a*ine the* as to their 4ualifications0 e)perience and service records1 #n the supervision of e*plo!ees0 the e*plo!er *ust for*ulate standard operatin/ procedures0 *onitor their i*ple*entation and i*pose disciplinar! *easures for the breach thereof1 (s the ne/li/ence of the e*plo!ee /ives rise to the presu*ption of ne/li/ence on the part of the e*plo!er0 the latter has the burden of provin/ that it has been dili/ent not onl! in the selection of e*plo!ees but also in the actual supervision of their wor21 The t ial cou t found that #etitione $%&'I e"e cised the diligence of a good fathe of a fa(ily in the selection but not in the su#e vision of its e(#loyees it see*s that the Philippine Rabbit us "ines has a ver! /ood procedure of recruitin/ its driver as well as in the *aintenance of its vehicles1 There is no evidence thou/h that it is as /ood in the supervision of its personnel1 o no evidence introduced that there are rules pro*ul/ated b! the bus co*pan! re/ardin/ the safe operation of its vehicle and in the wa! its driver should *ana/e and operate the vehicles o no showin/ that so*ebod! in the bus co*pan! has been e*plo!ed to oversee how its driver should behave while operatin/ their vehicles o The presence of read! investi/ators after the occurrence of the accident is not enou/h1 3a*e does not co*pl! with the /uidelines set forth with re/ard to the supervision1

Re/ular supervision of e*plo!ees0 that is0 prior to an! accident0 should have been shown and established1 o the lac2 of supervision can further be seen b! the fact that there is onl! one set of *anual containin/ the rules and re/ulations for all the drivers Fo failu e to adduce # oof that it e"e cised the diligence of a good fathe of a fa(ily in the selection and su#e vision of its e(#loyees, #etitione $%&'I is held solida ily es#onsible fo the da(ages caused by #etitione Manliclic)s negligence.

D#3P=3#T#A.: 6;.R.:=R.0 pre*ises considered0 the instant petition for review is D.N#.D1 The decision of the Court of (ppeals is (::#R$.D with the $=D#:#C(T#=N that (1) the award of *oral da*a/es shall be reduced to PE-0---1--% and (&) the award of e)e*plar! da*a/es shall be lowered to PE-0---1--1