FACTS:

On July 12, 1988, respondent Modesto Calaunan was driving his jeep when it was hit by a bus owned by petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI). The collision caused the jeep to veer to the right and fall into a ditch, resulting in extensive damage. Respondent suffered minor injuries. A criminal case was filed against the bus driver, Mauricio Manliclic, while respondent filed a complaint for damages against Manliclic and PRBLI. The parties agreed on certain facts and sought the presentation of transcripts of testimonies from the criminal case since the witnesses were not available. Various witnesses testified for both parties, and documents from the criminal case were admitted as evidence. The main issue is the liability for the collision, with respondent claiming it was Manliclic and Manliclic claiming it was respondent who caused the collision.

The case involves a collision between a jeep and a bus owned by PRBLI. Witnesses stated that the jeep swerved to the right after being hit by the bus. Both the bus driver and his assistant admitted that the bus bumped the jeep but claimed the jeep swerved to the left to overtake another jeep. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent Calaunan and ordered PRBLI and Manliclic to pay damages. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners appealed, alleging errors committed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

The issue in this case is the admissibility of testimonies and documents from the criminal case. Petitioner PRBLI did not object to the admissibility of the testimonies of respondent Calaunan and other witnesses in the trial court. PRBLI also offered a transcript of testimony from the criminal case. PRBLI argues that the testimonies of the adverse party's witnesses in the criminal case should not be admitted in the civil case but insists on admitting the testimony of the witness for the accused. Petitioners also argue that documents from the criminal case should not have been admitted in the civil case, as they believe that the rule only refers to testimonies or depositions, not documents from a former case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the documents from the criminal case can be admitted in the civil case.

2. Whether petitioner Manliclic can still be held liable for the collision despite his acquittal in the criminal case.

3. Whether the civil liability arising from a crime or delict is extinguished by an acquittal

4. Whether the civil liability arising from a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is extinguished by an acquittal

5. Whether the version of the collision presented by the petitioners should be given credence

6. Whether there is inconsistency between the statement and testimony of Oscar Buan regarding the manner of the collision.

7. Whether the statement of Mauricio Manliclic regarding the position of the Philippine Rabbit Bus at the time of the collision should be believed.

8. Whether the employer, Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBLI) exercised the required diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

9. Whether petitioner PRBLI exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of its employees.

10. Whether the presence of investigators after the accident is enough to exempt petitioner PRBLI from liability.

RULING:

1. The documents from the criminal case can be admitted in the civil case. While Section 47 of Rule 130 refers only to "testimony or deposition," it does not mean that documents from a former case or proceeding cannot be admitted. These documents can be admitted as they are part of the testimonies of witnesses that have been admitted. They shall be given the same weight as the testimony may be entitled.

2. Petitioner Manliclic can still be held liable for the collision despite his acquittal in the criminal case. The declaration of acquittal in the criminal case does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability. The civil action arising from the collision is a separate and distinct action from the criminal action. The acquittal in the criminal case does not necessarily mean that there was an absence of negligence on his part. Therefore, he can still be held liable in the civil case.

3. The civil liability arising from a crime or delict is extinguished by an acquittal only if the acquittal is based on a finding that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of.

4. The civil liability arising from a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is not extinguished by an acquittal, whether it be on the ground of reasonable doubt or that the accused was not the author of the act or omission complained of.

5. The Court cannot review the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals unless there are exceptional circumstances. In this case, the Court finds no basis to depart from the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that it was petitioner Manliclic who was negligent in driving the PRBLI bus, causing the collision.

6. Yes, there is inconsistency between the statement and testimony of Oscar Buan regarding the manner of the collision. His statement given to the Philippine Rabbit Investigator mentioned that the jeep of the plaintiff was in the act of overtaking another jeep when the collision occurred, while in his testimony, he alleged that the Philippine Rabbit Bus was already on the left side of the jeep when the collision took place. As a result, his explanation regarding the manner of the collision should be taken with caution.

7. No, the court did not believe the statement of Mauricio Manliclic. If the Philippine Rabbit Bus was already parallel to the jeep at the time of the collision, the point of collision on the jeep should have been on the left side and the jeep should have fallen on the road itself. Moreover, the statement regarding the speed of the bus was not controverted by the defendants.

8. PRBLI failed to prove that it exercised the required diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. While it presented evidence of the screening process that Manliclic underwent before becoming a regular driver, it did not show concrete proof, including documentary evidence, that it complied with everything required in the selection and supervision of employees. The mere allegation of the existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies is not enough to overcome the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer.

9. The trial court found that petitioner PRBLI failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of its employees. The lack of evidence regarding rules and regulations for safe operation of vehicles and driver behavior, as well as the absence of regular supervision of employees prior to any accident, showed negligence on the part of petitioner PRBLI. Therefore, petitioner PRBLI is held solidarily responsible for the damages caused by the negligence of its employee.

10. The presence of investigators after the accident is not enough to exempt petitioner PRBLI from liability. Regular supervision of employees prior to any accident should have been established. The lack of supervision is further evidenced by the fact that there is only one set of manual containing the rules and regulations for all drivers of PRBLI.

PRINCIPLES:

• Failure to timely object to the admissibility of evidence waives the right to later object on the ground of denial of due process.

• Section 47 of Rule 130, which refers to "testimony or deposition," does not preclude the admission of documents from a former case or proceeding as long as they are part of the testimonies of witnesses that have been admitted.

• The acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically extinguish the civil liability, unless there is a declaration in a final judgment that the fact giving rise to the civil liability did not exist. The civil action arising from a crime is separate and distinct from the criminal action.

• The extinction of civil liability referred to in Section 3, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (now Section 2(b) of Rule 111) applies only to civil liability arising from a crime or delict and not to civil liability arising from a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.

• A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code and is entirely separate and distinct from a delict or crime. The same negligence causing damages may create civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code or an action for quasi-delicts or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code.

• An acquittal or conviction in a criminal case is irrelevant in a civil case based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.

• The Court will not review the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals in a petition for review unless there are exceptional circumstances enumerated in the ruling.

• Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, when an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. This presumption can only be rebutted by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family.

• Employers are required to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. In the selection process, employers must examine the qualifications, experience, and service records of prospective employees. In the supervision of employees, employers must formulate suitable rules and regulations, monitor their implementation, and impose necessary disciplinary measures for non-compliance.

• The mere existence of company guidelines and policies on hiring and supervision is not sufficient to exempt an employer from liability. The employer must provide concrete proof, including documentary evidence, showing compliance with the required selection and supervision processes. Mere allegation of their existence is not enough to overcome the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer.

• An employer has a duty to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.

• Lack of supervision and failure to establish rules and regulations for safe operation of vehicles and driver behavior may render an employer negligent and liable for damages caused by its employee's negligence.