Title
Manliclic vs. Calau
Case
G.R. No. 150157
Decision Date
Jan 25, 2007
A 1988 collision between a Philippine Rabbit bus and a jeep led to civil liability claims. The Supreme Court ruled the bus driver negligent, upheld employer liability, and adjusted damages, affirming civil liability despite the driver's criminal acquittal.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 150157)

Facts:

  • Parties and Vehicles
    • Petitioners: Mauricio Manliclic (driver) and Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (owner of Bus No. 353, plate CVD-478).
    • Respondent: Modesto Calaunan (owner of owner-type jeep, plate PER-290) driven by Marcelo Mendoza.
  • Collision and Consequences
    • On July 12, 1988 (6–7 AM) at km 40, North Luzon Expressway, both vehicles bound for Manila collided: bus’s front right struck jeep’s rear left, forcing the jeep into a roadside ditch; bus veered left and stopped 7–8 m from impact.
    • Calaunan suffered minor injuries; driver Mendoza unhurt. Jeep was extensively damaged, requiring towing and repair; Calaunan hospitalized.
  • Procedural History
    • Criminal Case No. 684-M-89 (RTC Malolos): Manliclic charged with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with physical injuries; tried first.
    • Civil Case No. D-10086 (RTC Dagupan): Filed December 2, 1991 by Calaunan against Manliclic and PRBLI for quasi-delict damages; numerous stenographic transcripts (TSNs) from the criminal case were offered and admitted.
    • RTC Dagupan rendered judgment (July 22, 1996) holding petitioners solidarily liable for ₱40,838 actual damages, ₱100,000 moral, ₱100,000 exemplary, and ₱15,000 attorney’s fees.
    • Court of Appeals (September 28, 2001) affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.

Issues:

  • Whether the TSNs and documents from the criminal case were admissible in the civil suit.
  • Which party’s version of how the collision occurred is credible for negligence attribution.
  • Whether PRBLI exercised due diligence in selecting and supervising its employee (Manliclic) to avert vicarious liability.
  • Whether the awards for actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were proper in amount and legal basis.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.