G.R. No. 234660 - Spouses Magdalino Gabun and Carol Gabun, Nora A. Lopez, and Marcelino Alfonso vs. Winston Clark Stolk, Sr.

Petitioners: Mauricio Manliclic (driver) and Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI), owner-operator of Philippine Rabbit Bus No. 353, plate CVD-478.
Respondent: Modesto Calaunan, owner of an owner-type jeep, plate PER-290; his driver was Marcelo Mendoza.

Date, time, and place: Between 6:00–7:00 AM on 12 July 1988 at around Km. 40, North Luzon Expressway, Barangay Lalangan, Plaridel, Bulacan.
Manner of collision: The front-right portion of the PRBLI bus struck the rear-left portion of the jeep. The jeep was forced to the right shoulder and fell into a water-filled ditch, sustaining extensive damage; the bus veered left and stopped 7–8 meters from the point of impact.
Conditions: Weather fair; road straight and well-paved; ditch on the right side.
Injuries and immediate aftermath: Respondent sustained minor injuries; his driver was unhurt. Respondent was brought to Manila Central University Hospital (Caloocan) and later to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center.

Criminal case: RTC Malolos, Bulacan, Crim. Case No. 684-M-89 for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Physical Injuries against Manliclic alone.
Civil case: RTC Dagupan City, Civil Case No. D-10086 for damages based on quasi-delict against Manliclic and PRBLI, filed 2 December 1991.
Pre-trial admissions in civil case: Capacity/venue; identity of vehicles and drivers; both vehicles heading south with the jeep ahead; weather/road conditions; date/place of collision; extent of respondent’s injuries and existence of medical certificate.

Unavailability of key witnesses and use of TSNs: Respondent, Marcelo Mendoza, and Fernando Ramos were unavailable (respondent left for abroad; Ramos left for Jordan; Mendoza’s whereabouts unknown). Respondent offered the TSNs of their testimonies in the criminal case; the RTC subpoenaed Branch 8, RTC Malolos, for TSNs and documentary exhibits. A court interpreter (Enrique Santos Guevara) identified the TSNs and documents.
Parties’ evidence:

For respondent: TSNs of respondent, Mendoza, and Ramos from the criminal case; later marked as rebuttal evidence additional TSNs (including those of PRBLI investigator Ganiban, bus conductor Oscar Buan, and Manliclic).
For petitioners: Live testimonies of Manliclic and Buan; adoption of PRBLI investigator Donato Ganiban’s TSN (Ganiban deceased).

Respondent’s version: Jeep traveling 60–70 kph on slow lane; PRBLI bus, running very fast, attempted to overtake and hit the jeep’s rear-left while still behind it; corroborated by eyewitness Fernando Ramos following behind.
Petitioners’ version: As the bus was about to overtake on the left lane, the jeep suddenly swerved left to overtake a vehicle ahead, causing the collision.

Credibility/inconsistencies: The RTC noted inconsistencies between Manliclic’s contemporaneous statement to PRBLI investigator (bus behind jeep at impact) and later testimonies (bus already on left of jeep), and the absence of any mention of the jeep’s overtaking maneuver in his earlier statement; Buan’s statements were given a day later and were less reliable; physical evidence favored rear impact consistent with respondent’s version.

RTC (Dagupan, 22 July 1996): Found Manliclic negligent; held PRBLI solidarily liable under Article 2180; awarded P40,838 actual damages (repairs and towing), P100,000 moral, P100,000 exemplary, and P15,000 attorney’s fees.
CA (28 September 2001): Affirmed RTC in toto.
Subsequent criminal appeal: CA-G.R. CR No. 19749 acquitted Manliclic of reckless imprudence, holding absence of negligence because jeep’s swerving was beyond his control; petitioners invoked this acquittal before the Supreme Court.
Substitution of parties: Respondent Calaunan died pending appeal; his heirs were substituted.

Whether the RTC and CA erred in admitting in the civil case the TSNs and documents from the criminal case despite PRBLI not being a party therein and Section 47, Rule 130’s requisites not being met.

Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s reliance on respondent’s version of the collision and in finding Manliclic negligent.

Whether Manliclic’s acquittal for reckless imprudence in CA-G.R. CR No. 19749 exonerates him and PRBLI from civil liability in the separate civil action.

Whether PRBLI sufficiently proved due diligence in the selection and supervision of Manliclic to overcome the presumption of negligence under Article 2180.

Whether the damages and attorney’s fees awarded by the RTC and affirmed by the CA were proper in kind and amount.