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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150157)

Petitioners and Respondent

Petitioners: Mauricio Manliclic (driver) and PRBLI (employer), sued for negligence and vicarious liability.
Respondent: Modesto Calaunan, seeking damages for vehicular destruction and personal injuries.

Key Dates and Vehicles Involved

On July 12, 1988, at approximately Kilometer 40 on the North Luzon Expressway in Bulacan, PRBLI Bus No. 353 (plate CVD-478) collided with respondent’s jeep (plate PER-290). The criminal case commenced in 1989; the civil case was filed December 2, 1991.

Facts of the Collision

Both vehicles traveled southbound on a straight, paved, fair-weather expressway. The bus overtook the jeep and struck its rear left side, sending the jeep off-road into a ditch. The bus stopped about 7–8 meters beyond impact. Respondent sustained minor injuries; his driver was unhurt.

Medical and Criminal Proceedings

Respondent received treatment first at Manila Central University Hospital, then at Veterans Memorial Medical Center. Criminal Case No. 684-M-89 for reckless imprudence resulting in damage and physical injuries was filed against Manliclic. In 2001 the Court of Appeals acquitted him.

Civil Proceedings and Admission of Former Testimony

Respondent’s civil complaint (Civil Case No. D-10086) alleged negligence by Manliclic and vicarious liability by PRBLI. Transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) from the criminal trial were offered under Rule 130, Section 47. PRBLI failed to object at the time, waiving any hearsay or procedural defects.

Trial Court Findings on Liability

The Regional Trial Court favored respondent’s account over petitioners’. It noted inconsistencies in Manliclic’s statements and the absence of evidence supporting his version. Finding Manliclic negligent in bus operation, it invoked Article 2180 of the Civil Code to impose vicarious liability on PRBLI.

Court of Appeals Decision

In CA-G.R. CV No. 55909, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in all respects, upholding evidence rulings, credibility determinations, PRBLI’s due diligence defense rejection, and the damage awards.

Effect of Criminal Acquittal on Civil Quasi-Delict

An acquittal in a criminal case does not extinguish civil liability for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Civil liability for negligence remains a distinct concept and may be proven by preponderance of evidence despite penal acquittal.

Employer’s Vicarious Liability and Due Diligence

Article 2180 presumes an employer negligent when an employee causes harm unless the employer proves diligence in selection and supervision. PRBLI established hiring

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.