GR 150157; (January, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150157 ; January 25, 2007
MAURICIO MANLICLIC and PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., Petitioners, vs. MODESTO CALAUNAN, Respondent.
FACTS
On July 12, 1988, a collision occurred on the North Luzon Expressway between a Philippine Rabbit bus driven by petitioner Mauricio Manliclic and an owner-type jeep owned by respondent Modesto Calaunan and driven by Marcelo Mendoza. The jeep was ahead, traveling southbound. The bus hit the jeep’s rear left side, causing the jeep to fall into a ditch. Respondent suffered minor injuries. A criminal case for Reckless Imprudence was filed against Manliclic. Subsequently, respondent filed a civil case for damages against Manliclic and Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI). During the civil trial, key witnesses for the respondent were unavailable, having gone abroad or missing. The trial court admitted the transcripts of their testimonies from the prior criminal case as evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly admitted the testimonies from the criminal case as evidence in the civil case, and whether petitioners are solidarily liable for damages.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. On the admissibility of evidence, the Court held that the transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) from the criminal case were properly admitted under Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The witnesses were unavailable, and petitioners, as the accused in the criminal case, had the opportunity to cross-examine them. Their prior testimonies were therefore admissible against petitioners in the civil case. On the merits, the Court found the evidence established petitioner Manliclic’s negligence. The consistent testimonies from the criminal case showed the bus was speeding and improperly overtaking when it struck the jeep from behind. The principle of res ipsa loquitur applied, as a rear-end collision typically implies negligence by the following driver. Consequently, Manliclic was liable for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. As his employer, PRBLI was solidarily liable under Article 2180, having failed to prove it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. The award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees, was upheld as justified by the evidence and circumstances.