IV.
CAUSATION Jose Koh's negligence that was the immediate and proximate
A. PROXIMATE CAUSE
B. EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
MCKEE v IAC, TAYAG
211 SCRA 517
DAVIDE; July 16, 1992
NATURE: Appeal from decision of the IAC
FACTS:
- A head-on-collision took place between a cargo truck owned
by private respondents, and driven by Ruben Galang, and a
Ford Escort car driven by Jose Koh. The collision resulted in
the deaths of Jose Koh, Kim Koh McKee and Loida Bondoc,
and physical injuries to George Koh McKee, Christopher Koh
McKee and Araceli Koh McKee, all passengers of the Ford
Escort.
- When the northbound Ford Escort was about 10 meters away
from the southern approach of the bridge, two boys suddenly
darted from the right side of the road and into the lane of the
car. Jose Koh blew the horn of the car, swerved to the left and
entered the lane of the truck; he then switched on the
headlights of the car, applied the brakes and thereafter
attempted to return to his lane. Before he could do so, his car
collided with the truck. The collision occurred in the lane of the
truck, which was the opposite lane, on the said bridge.
- Two civil cases were filed on Jan 31, 1977.
- On 1 March 1977, an Information charging Ruben Galang
with the crime of "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Multiple
Homicide and Physical Injuries and Damage to Property" was
filed with the trial court.
- Judge Capulong found Galang guilty of the criminal charge
and ordered him to pay damages. Galang appealed to IAC.
IAC affirmed decision.
- Judge Castaneda dismissed the 2 civil cases and awarded
private respondents moral damages and exemplary damages,
and attorney’s fee. Petitioners appealed to IAC. In its
consolidated decision of the civil cases, it reversed the ruling of
the trial court and ordered the defendants to pay damages. The
decision is anchored principally on the findings that it was
Galang's inattentiveness or reckless imprudence which caused
the accident. The appellate court further said that the law
presumes negligence on the part of the defendants, as
employers of Galang, in the selection and supervision of the
latter; it was further asserted that these defendants did not
allege in their Answers the defense of having exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and
supervising the said employee.
- In an MFR, the decision for the consolidated civil cases was
reversed. Hence this petition.
ISSUES
WON respondent Court's findings in its challenged resolution
are supported by evidence or are based on mere speculations,
conjectures and presumptions.
HELD
YES
- Findings of facts of the trial courts and the Court of Appeals
may be set aside when such findings are not supported by the
evidence or when the trial court failed to consider the material
facts which would have led to a conclusion different from what
was stated in its judgment.
- The respondent Court held that the fact that the car
improperly invaded the lane of the truck and that the collision
occurred in said lane gave rise to the presumption that the
driver of the car, Jose Koh, was negligent. On the basis of this
presumed negligence, IAC immediately concluded that it was
cause of the collision. This is an unwarranted deduction as the
evidence for the petitioners convincingly shows that the car
swerved into the truck's lane because as it approached the
southern end of the bridge, two boys darted across the road
from the right sidewalk into the lane of the car.
- Negligence is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do
- The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in
a particular case: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
- Using the test, no negligence can be imputed to Jose Koh.
Any reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have tried to
avoid running over the two boys by swerving the car away from
where they were even if this would mean entering the opposite
lane.
- Moreover, under what is known as the emergency rule, "one
who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is
required to act without time to consider the best means that
may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless
the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by
his own negligence.
- Assuming, arguendo that Jose Koh is negligent, it cannot be
said that his negligence was the proximate cause of the
collision. Proximate cause has been defined as: that cause,
which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred; the proximate legal
cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each
having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting
the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which
first acted, under such circumstances that the person
responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent
and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an injury to some person
might probably result therefrom.
- Although it may be said that the act of Jose Koh, if at all
negligent, was the initial act in the chain of events, it cannot be
said that the same caused the eventual injuries and deaths
because of the occurrence of a sufficient intervening event, the
negligent act of the truck driver, which was the actual cause of
the tragedy. The entry of the car into the lane of the truck
would not have resulted in the collision had the latter heeded
the emergency signals given by the former to slow down and
give the car an opportunity to go back into its proper lane.
Instead of slowing down and swerving to the far right of the
road, which was the proper precautionary measure under the
given circumstances, the truck driver continued at full speed
towards the car.
- The truck driver's negligence is apparent in the records. He
himself said that his truck was running at 30 miles (48 km) per
hour along the bridge while the maximum speed allowed by
law on a bridge is only 30 kph. Under Article 2185 of the Civil
Code, a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the
time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
- Even if Jose Koh was indeed negligent, the doctrine of last
1
clear chance finds application here. Last clear chance is a
Page
doctrine in the law of torts which states that the contributory
negligence of the party injured will not defeat the claim for
damages if it is shown that the defendant might, by the
exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the
consequences of the negligence of the injured party. In such
cases, the person who had the last clear chance to avoid the
mishap is considered in law solely responsible for the
consequences thereof.
- Last clear chance: The doctrine is that the negligence of the
plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the
defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising
reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's
negligence. The doctrine of last clear chance means that even
though a person's own acts may have placed him in a position
of peril, and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to
recovery. a person who has the last clear chance or
opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the
negligent acts of his opponent or that of a third person imputed
to the opponent is considered in law solely responsible for the
consequences of the accident. The practical import of the
doctrine is that a negligent defendant is held liable to a
negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly
negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff's
peril, or according to some authorities, should have been
aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care, had in fact
an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an
accident.
- As employers of the truck driver, the private respondents are,
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, directly and primarily
liable for the resulting damages. The presumption that they are
negligent flows from the negligence of their employee. That
presumption, however, is only juris tantum, not juris et de jure.
Their only possible defense is that they exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.
The answers of the private respondents in the civil cases did
not interpose this defense. Neither did they attempt to prove it.
On the separate civil and criminal actions
- The civil cases, which were for the recovery of civil liability
arising from a quasi-delict under Article 2176 in relation to
Article 2180 of the Civil Code, were filed ahead of criminal
case. They were eventually consolidated for joint trial. The
records do not indicate any attempt on the part of the parties,
and it may therefore be reasonably concluded that none was
made, to consolidate criminal case with the civil cases, or vice-
versa.
- Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to avoid
a multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression and abuse,
prevent delays, clear congested dockets to simplify the work of
the trial court, or in short, attain justice with the least expense
to the parties litigants, would have easily sustained a
consolidation, thereby preventing the unseeming, if no
ludicrous, spectacle of two judges appreciating, according to
their respective orientation, perception and perhaps even
prejudice, the same facts differently, and thereafter rendering
conflicting decisions. Such was what happened in this case.
- The responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a quasi-
delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability
arising from negligence under the Penal Code. In the case of
independent civil actions under the new Civil Code, the result
of the criminal case, whether acquittal or conviction, would be
entirely irrelevant to the civil action. What remains to be the
most important consideration as to why the decision in the
criminal case should not be considered in this appeal is the fact
that private respondents were not parties therein.
Dispositive Petition granted. Assailed decision set aside while
its original is REINSTATED, subject to the modification that the
indemnity for death is increased from P12,000.00 to
P50,000.00 each for the death of Jose Koh and Kim Koh
McKee
MANILA ELECTRIC v REMOQUILLO
SUPRA (causation, test)
TEAGUE VS. FERNANDEZ
51 SCRA 181
MAKALINTAL; June 4, 1973
FACTS
- The Realistic Institute, owned and operated by Mercedes M.
Teague, was a vocational school for hair and beauty culture
situated on the second floor of the Gil-Armi Building, a two-
storey, semi-concrete edifice located at the comer of Quezon
Boulevard and Soler Street, Quiapo, Manila. The second floor
was unpartitioned, had a total area of about 400 square
meters, and although it had only one stairway, of about 1.50
meters in width, it had eight windows, each of which was
provided with two fire-escape ladders, and the presence of
each of the fire exits was indicated on the wall.
- In the afternoon of October 24, 1955, a fire broke out in a
store for surplus materials located about ten meters away from
the institute. Soler Street lay between that store and the
institute. Upon seeing the fire, some of the students in the
Realistic Institute shouted 'Fire! Fire!' and thereafter, a panic
ensued. Four instructresses and six assistant instructresses of
the institute were present and they, together with the registrar,
tried to calm down the students, who numbered about 180 at
the time, telling them not to be afraid because the Gil-Armi
Building would not get burned as it is made of concrete, and
that the fire was anyway, across the street. They told the
students not to rush out but just to go down the stairway two by
two, or to use the fire-escapes. The panic, however, could not
be subdued and the students kept on rushing and pushing their
way through the stairs, thereby causing stampede. No part of
the Gil-Armi Building caught fire. But, after the panic was over,
four students, including Lourdes Fernandez, sister of plaintiffs,
were found dead and several others injured on account of the
stampede.
- The CFI of Manila found for the defendant and dismissed the
case. The plaintiffs appealed to the CA, which by a divided
vote of 3 to 2 (a special division of five members having been
constituted) rendered a judgment of reversal and sentenced
the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiffs in the sum of
P11,000, plus interest at the legal rate from the date the
complaint was filed.
- The CA declared that Teague was negligent and that such
negligence was the proximate cause of the death of Lourdes
Fernandez. This finding of negligence is based primarily on the
fact that the provision of Section 491 of the Revised
Ordinances of the City of Manila had not been complied with in
connection with the construction and use of the Gil-Armi
building. This provision reads as follows:
"Sec. 491. Fireproof partitions, exits and stairways - All
buildings and separate sections of buildings or buildings
otherwise known as accessorias having less than three stories,
having one or more persons domiciled therein either
temporarily or permanently, and all public or quasipublic
buildings having less than three stories, such as hospitals,
sanitarium, schools, reformatories, places of human detention,
assembly halls, clubs, restaurants or panciterias, and the like,
shall be provided with at least two unobstructed stairways of
not less than one meter and twenty centimeters in width and an
inclination of not less than forty degrees from the
perpendicular, in case of large buildings more than two
stairways shall likewise be provided when required by the chief
of the fire department, said stairways shall be placed as far
2
apart as possible."
Page
The alleged violation of the ordinance consisted is that the
second storey of the building had only one stairway, 1.5
meters wide, instead of two of at least 1.2 meters each,
although at the time of the fire the owner of the building had a
second stairway under construction.
ISSUES
1. WON Section 491 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of
Manila refers only to public buildings and hence did not apply
to the Gil-Armi building which was of private ownership
2. WON the ordinance devolved upon the owners of the
building and therefore it is they and not the petitioner, who is a
mere lessee, who should be liable for the violation
3. WON the failure to comply with the requirement of the
ordinance was the proximate cause of the death of Lourdes
Fernandez
HELD
1. NO.
Ratio it is not ownership which determines the character of
buildings subject to its requirements, but rather the use or the
purpose for which a particular building, is utilized.
Reasoning Thus the same may be privately owned, but if it is
devoted to any one of the purposes mentioned in the ordinance
- for instance as a school, which the Realistic Institute precisely
was - then the building is within the coverage of the ordinance.
Indeed the requirement that such a building should have two
(2) separate stairways instead of only one (1) has no relevance
or reasonable relation to the fact of ownership, but does have
such relation to the use or purpose for which the building is
devoted.
2. NO.
Reasoning It was the use of the building for school purposes
which brought the same within the coverage of the ordinance;
and it was the petitioner and not the owners who were
responsible for such use.
3. YES.
Ratio The violation of a statute or ordinance is not rendered
remote as the cause of an injury by the intervention of another
agency if the occurrence of the accident, in the manner in
which it happened, was the very thing which the statute or
ordinance was intended to prevent.
Reasoning The proximate legal cause is that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by settling other
events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous
chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately affecting the injury as a natural and probable
result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances
that the person responsible for the first event should, as an
ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an
injury to some person might probably result there from. [Citing
Bataclan v Medina]
- The petitioner relates the chain of events that resulted in the
death of Lourdes Fernandez as follows: (1) violation of
ordinance; (2) fire at a neighboring place; (3) shouts of "Fire!,
Fire!"; (4) panic in the Institute; (5) stampede; and (6) injuries
and death. The violation of the ordinance, it is argued, was only
a remote cause, and cannot be the basis of liability since there
intervened a number of independent causes which produced
the injury complained of.
- A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an
action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the
condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was
made possible, if there intervened between such prior or
remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated,
and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would
cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective
condition sets into operation the circumstances which result in
injury because of the prior defective condition, such
subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause. [Citing
MERALCO v Remoquillo]
- According to the petitioner "the events of fire, panic and
stampede were independent causes with no causal connection
at all with the violation of the ordinance." The weakness in the
argument springs from a faulty juxtaposition of the events
which formed a chain and resulted in the injury. It is true that
the petitioner's non-compliance with the ordinance in question
was ahead of and prior to the other events in point of time, in
the sense that it was coetaneous with its occupancy of the
building. But the violation was a continuing one, since the
ordinance was a measure of safety designed to prevent a
specific situation which would pose a danger to the occupants
of the building. That situation was undue overcrowding in case
it should become necessary to evacuate the building, which, it
could be reasonably foreseen, was bound to happen under
emergency conditions if there was only one stairway available.
It is true that in this particular case there would have been no
overcrowding in the single stairway if there had not been a fire
in the neighborhood which caused the students to panic and
rush headlong for the stairs in order to go down. But it was
precisely such contingencies or events that the authors of the
ordinance had in mind, for under normal conditions one
stairway would be adequate for the occupants of the building.
- To consider the violation of the ordinance as the proximate
cause of the injury does not portray the situation in its true
perspective; it would be more accurate to say that the
overcrowding at the stairway was the proximate cause and that
it was precisely what the ordinance intended to prevent by
requiring that there be two stairways instead of only one. Under
the doctrine of the cases cited by the respondents, the principle
of proximate cause applies to such violation.
Dispositive Decision appealed from is affirmed.
URBANO V IAC
SUPRA (causation, distinguished from other kinds, remote)
C. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Aquino, pages 311 to 329
3

not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no

Page

danger existed in the condition except because of the

independent cause, such condition was not the proximate
PICART V SMITH
STREET; March 15, 1918
NATURE
Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of La Union
FACTS
 On December 12, 1912, plaintiff was riding on his pony
over the Carlatan Bridge, at San Fernando, La Union.
 Before he had gotten half way across, the defendant
approached from the opposite direction in an automobile,
going at the rate of about ten or twelve miles per hour.
 As the defendant neared the bridge he saw the plaintiff
and blew his horn to give warning of his approach.
 He continued his course and after he had taken the bridge,
he gave two more successive blasts, as it appeared to him
that the man on horseback before him was not observing
the rule of the road.
 The plaintiff saw the automobile coming and heard the
warning signals.
 However, given the novelty of the apparition and the
rapidity of the approach, he pulled the pony closely up
against the railing on the right side of the bridge instead of
going to the left.
 He did this because he thought he did not have sufficient
time to get over to the other side.
 As the automobile approached, the defendant guided it
toward his left, that being the proper side of the road for
the machine.
 In so doing the defendant assumed that the horseman
would move to the other side.
 The pony had not as yet exhibited fright, and the rider had
made no sign for the automobile to stop.
 Seeing that the pony was apparently quiet, the defendant,
instead of veering to the right while yet some distance
away or slowing down, continued to approach directly
toward the horse without diminution of speed.
 When he had gotten quite near, there being then no
possibility of the horse getting across to the other side, the
defendant quickly turned his car sufficiently to the right to
escape hitting the horse alongside of the railing where it as
then standing; but in so doing the automobile passed in
such close proximity to the animal that it became
frightened and turned its body across the bridge with its
head toward the railing.
 In so doing, it was struck on the hock of the left hind leg by
the flange of the car and the limb was broken.
 The horse fell and its rider was thrown off with some
violence.
 As a result of its injuries the horse died.
 The plaintiff received contusions which caused temporary
unconsciousness and required medical attention for
several days.
 CFI absolved defendant from liability
 Hence, the appeal
ISSUE
WON the defendant, in maneuvering his car in the manner
above described, was guilty of negligence that would give rise
to a civil obligation to repair the damage done
Ratio: The person who has the last fair chance to avoid the
impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without reference to the prior negligence
of the other part.
HELD
Yes.
 As the defendant started across the bridge, he had the
right to assume that the horse and the rider would pass
over to the proper side; but as he moved toward the center
of the bridge it was demonstrated to his eyes that this
would not be done; and he must in a moment have
perceived that it was too late for the horse to cross with
safety in front of the moving vehicle.
 In the nature of things this change of situation occurred
while the automobile was yet some distance away; and
from this moment it was no longer within the power of the
plaintiff to escape being run down by going to a place of
greater safety.
 The control of the situation had then passed entirely to the
defendant; and it was his duty either to bring his car to an
immediate stop or, seeing that there were no other
persons on the bridge, to take the other side and pass
sufficiently far away from the horse to avoid the danger of
collision.
 The defendant ran straight on until he was almost upon
the horse. He was, the court thinks, deceived into doing
this by the fact that the horse had not yet exhibited fright.
 But in view of the known nature of horses, there was an
appreciable risk that, if the animal in question was
unacquainted with automobiles, he might get excited and
jump under the conditions which here confronted him.
 When the defendant exposed the horse and rider to this
danger, he was, in our opinion, negligent in the eye of the
law.
 The test by which to determine the existence of
negligence in a particular case may be stated as
follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution
which an ordinarily prudent person would have used
in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence.
 The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be
supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet
paterfamilias of the Roman law.
 The existence of negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal judgment of the
actor in the situation before him. The law considers what
would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of
ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability
by that.
 The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a
prudent man in a given situation must of course be always
determined in the light of human experience and in view of
the facts involved in the particular case. Could a prudent
man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a
result of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty
of the actor to take precautions to guard against that harm.
Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of the
suggestion born of this prevision, is always necessary
before negligence can be held to exist.
 Stated in these terms, the proper criterion for determining
the existence of negligence in a given case is this:
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the
position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an
effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to
warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its
consequences.
 Applying this test to the conduct of the defendant in the
present case, negligence is clearly established. A prudent
man, placed in the position of the defendant, would have
4
recognized that the course which he was pursuing was
Page
fraught with risk, and would therefore have foreseen harm
to the horse and the rider as reasonable consequence of
 that course. Under these circumstances the law imposed
on the defendant the duty to guard against the threatened
harm.
 The plaintiff himself was not free from fault, for he was
guilty of antecedent negligence in planting himself on the
wrong side of the road. It will be noted however, that the
negligent acts of the two parties were not
contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant
succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable
interval. Under these circumstances the law is that the
person who has the last fair chance to avoid the
impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of
the other party.
Dispositive: Appealed decision is reversed.
BUSTAMANTE V CA (DEL PILAR AND MONTESIANO)
193 SCRA 603
MEDIALDEA; February 6, 1991
NATURE: petition for certiorari to review decision of CA
FACTS: a truck and a passenger bus sideswept each other,
causing the deaths of the passengers of the bus. This is the
way the collision happened:
The bus, driven by Susulin, was traversing an inclined road
when the driver saw from 30 meters away an approaching
truck (driven by Montesiano), going very fast and the front
wheels wiggling. The bus driver also observed that the truck
was heading towards his lane. Not minding this circumstance
due to his belief that the truck driver was merely joking, Susulin
shifted from 4th to 3rd gear in order to give more power and
speed to the bus, which was ascending the inclined part of the
road, in order to overtake a Kubota hand tractor being pushed
by a person along the shoulder of the highway. While the bus
was in the process of overtaking or passing the hand tractor
and the truck was approaching the bus, the two vehicles
sideswiped each other at each other's left side.
The heirs of the victims filed for damages. The RTC awarded
damages, saying that the negligent acts of both drivers were
the cause of the accident, thus their liability must be solidary.
The driver and owner of the truck appealed to the CA, which
was denied at first, but was granted on MFR, absolving the
defendants based on the doctrine of last clear chance, saying
that the bus driver had the last clear chance to avoid the
accident, and that his negligence was the proximate cause of
the same.
ISSUES:
1. WON the CA was correct in absolving the driver and owner
of the truck (answered by WON CA correctly applied the
doctrine of last clear chance)
HELD:
1. NO
Ratio: The doctrine of last clear chance applies only between
the negligent parties. It does not apply in a case wherein a
victim (who is an outsider to the cause of the accident)
demands liability from the negligent parties.
Reasoning: The doctrine of last clear chance, stated broadly,
is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a
recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears
that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and
prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to the
plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence. In other
words, the doctrine of last clear chance means that even
though a person's own acts may have placed him in a position
of peril, and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to
recovery. As the doctrine is usually stated, a person who has
the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident,
notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that of a
third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law
solely responsible for the consequences of the accident
(Sangco).
A negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff, or
even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing
himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff's peril, or according
to some authorities, should have been aware of it in the
reasonable exercise of due case, had in fact an opportunity
later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident (Am. Jur).
As against 3rd persons, a negligent actor can’t defend by
saying that another had negligently failed to take action which
would have avoided injury.
Disposition: Petition GRANTED. Defendants Del Pilar and
Montesiano ordered to pay damages with other defendants
PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION INC V IAC (DIONISIO)
148 SCRA 353
FELICIANO; March 10, 1987
NATURE
PETITION for review of the decision of the IAC
FACTS
- 130AM 15 November 1975 - Leonardo Dionisio, driving his
Volkswagen car, was on his way home to Makati from a
cocktails-and-dinner meeting with his boss where had taken "a
shot or two" of liquor. Crossing the intersection of General
Lacuna and General Santos Streets at Bangkal, Makati, not far
from his home, when his car headlights (in his allegation)
suddenly failed. He switched his headlights on "bright" and
thereupon he saw a Ford dump truck looming some
21/2meters away from his car. The dump truck, owned and
registered by Phoenix Construction Inc. was parked askew
(partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic) on the right hand
side of General Lacuna Street facing the oncoming traffic.
There were no lights nor any so-called "early warning" reflector
devices set anywhere near the dump truck. The dump truck
had earlier that evening been driven home by Carbonel, its
regular driver. Dionisio claimed that he tried to avoid a collision
by swerving his car to the left but it was too late and his car
smashed into the dump truck. As a result of the collision,
Dionisio suffered some physical injuries including some
permanent facial scars, a "nervous breakdown" and loss of two
gold bridge dentures.
- Dionisio commenced an action for damages claiming that the
legal and proximate cause of his injuries was the negligent
manner in which Carbonel had parked the dump truck.
Phoenix and Carbonel countered that the proximate cause of
Dionisio's injuries was his own recklessness in driving fast at
the time of the accident, while under the influence of liquor,
without his headlights on and without a curfew pass. Phoenix
also sought to establish that it had exercised due care in the
selection and supervision of the dump truck driver.
- CFI: in favor of Dionisio
- IAC: affirmed TC but modified amounts
ISSUE
(obiter) WON last clear chance doctrine should be applied
therefore exculpating Phoenix from paying any damages
HELD
NO
- We hold that private respondent Dionisio's negligence was
5
"only contributory," that the "immediate and proximate cause"
Page
of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack of due care" and
that consequently respondent Dionisio may recover damages
though such damages are subject to mitigation by the courts
(Article 2179, Civil Code of the Philippines).
Obiter
- Phoenix and Carbonel also ask us to apply what they refer to
as the "last clear chance" doctrine. The theory here of
petitioners is that while the petitioner truck driver was
negligent, private respondent Dionisio had the "last clear
chance" of avoiding the accident and hence his injuries, and
that Dionisio having failed to take that "last clear chance" must
bear his own injuries alone. The last clear chance doctrine of
the common law was imported into our jurisdiction by Picart vs.
Smith but it is a matter for debate whether, or to what extent, it
has found its way into the Civil Code of the Philippines. The
historical function of that doctrine in the common law was to
mitigate the harshness of another common law doctrine or rule-
that of contributory negligence. The common law rule of
contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a
plaintiff who was also negligent, even if the plaintiff's
negligence was relatively minor as compared with the wrongful
act or omission of the defendant. The common law notion of
last clear chance permitted courts to grant recovery to a
plaintiff who had also been negligent provided that the
defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the casualty and
failed to do so. Accordingly, it is difficult to see what role, if any,
the common law last clear chance doctrine has to play in a
jurisdiction where the common law concept of contributory
negligence as an absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff, has
itself been rejected, as it has been in A2179 CC
- Is there perhaps a general concept of "last clear chance" that
may be extracted from its common law matrix and utilized as a
general rule in negligence cases in a civil law jurisdiction like
ours? We do not believe so. Under A2179, the task of a court,
in technical terms, is to determine whose negligence-the
plaintiff's or the defendant's-was the legal or proximate cause
of the injury. That task is not simply or even primarily an
exercise in chronology or physics, as the petitioners seem to
imply by the use of terms like "last" or "intervening" or
"immediate." The relative location in the continuum of time of
the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligent acts or omissions,
is only one of the relevant factors that may be taken into
account. Of more fundamental importance are the nature of the
negligent act or omission of each party and the character and
gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest
of the community. The petitioners urge that the truck driver
(and therefore his employer) should be absolved from
responsibility for his own prior negligence because the
unfortunate plaintiff failed to act with that increased diligence
which had become necessary to avoid the peril precisely
created by the truck driver's own wrongful act or omission, To
accept this proposition is to come too close to wiping out the
fundamental principle of law that a man must respond for the
forseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission.
Our law on quasi-delicts seeks to reduce the risks and burdens
of living in society and to allocate them among the members of
society. To accept the petitioners' proposition must tend to
weaken the very bonds of society.
Disposition CA decision is modified by reducing the
aggregate amount of compensatory damages, loss of expected
income and moral damages Dionisio is entitled to by 20% of
such amount
GLAN PEOPLE’S LUMBER AND HARDWARE V IAC (VDA.
DE CALIBO and kids)GR No.70493 NARVASA; May 18, 1989
NATURE
Petition for certiorari praying for a reversal of the judgment of
the Intermediate Appellate Court which, it is claimed, ignored
or ran counter to the established facts.
FACTS
- Engineer Orlando T. Calibo, Agripino Roranes, and Maximo
Patos were on the jeep owned by the Bacnotan Consolidated
Industries, Inc., with Calibo at the wheel, as it approached from
the South Lizada Bridge going towards the direction of Davao
City at about 1:45 in the afternoon of July 4,1979. At about that
time, the cargo track, loaded with cement bags, GI sheets,
plywood, driven by defendant Paul Zacarias y Infants, coming
from the opposite direction of Davao City and bound for Glan,
South Cotabato, had just crossed said bridge. At about 59
yards after crossing the bridge, the cargo truck and the jeep
collided as a consequence of which Engineer Calibo died while
Roranes and Patos sustained physical injuries. Zacarias was
unhurt. As a result of the impact, the left side of the truck was
slightly damaged while the left side of the jeep, including its
fender and hood, was extensively damaged. After the impact,
the jeep fell and rested on its right side on the asphalted road a
few meters to the rear of the truck, while the truck stopped on
its wheels on the road.
- On November 27, 1979, the instant case for damages was
filed by the surviving spouse and children of the late Engineer
Calibo who are residents of Tagbilaran City against the driver
and owners of the cargo truck.
- Trial Court dismissed the complaint (and defendants'
counterclaim) "for insufficiency of evidence." The
circumstances leading to the conclusion just mentioned:
1. Moments before its collission with the truck being operated
by Zacarias, the jeep of the deceased Calibo was "zigzagging."
2. Unlike Zacarias who readily submitted himself to
investigation by the police, Calibo's companions who suffered
injuries on account of the collision, refused to be so
investigated or give statements to the police officers. This, plus
Roranes' waiver of the right to institute criminal proceedings
against Zacarias, and the fact that indeed no criminal case was
ever instituted in Court against Zacarias, were "telling
indications that they did not attribute the happening to
defendant Zacarias' negligence or fault."
3. Roranes' testimony, given in plaintiffs' behalf, was "not as
clear and detailed as that of Zacarias," and was "uncertain and
even contradicted by the physical facts and the police
investigators Dimaano and Esparcia."
4. That there were skid marks left by the truck's tires at the
scene, and none by the jeep, demonstrates that the driver of
the truck had applied the brakes and the jeep's driver had not;
and that the jeep had on impact fallen on its right side is
indication that it was running at high speed.
5. Even if it be considered that there was some antecedent
negligence on the part of Zacarias shortly before the collision,
in that he had caused his truck to run some 25 centimeters to
the left of the center of the road, Engr. Calibo had the last clear
chance of avoiding the accident because he still had ample
room in his own lane to steer clear of the truck, or he could
simply have braked to a full stop.
- IAC reversed TC. It found Zacarias to be negligent on the
basis of the following circumstances, to wit:
1) "the truck driven by defendant Zacarias occupied the lane of
the jeep when the collision occurred,' and although Zacarias
saw the jeep from a distance of about 150 meters, he "did not
6
drive his truck back to his lane in order to avoid collision with
Page
the oncoming jeep . . .;" what is worse, "the truck driver
suddenly applied his brakes even as he knew that he was still
within the lane of the jeep;" had both vehicles stayed in their
respective lanes, the collision would never have occurred, they
would have passed "along side each other safely;"
2) Zacarias had no license at the time; what he handed to Pfc.
Esparcia, on the latter's demand, was the 'driver's license of his
co-driver Leonardo Baricuatro;"
3) the waiver of the right to file criminal charges against
Zacarias should not be taken against "plaintiffs" Roranes and
Patos who had the right, under the law, to opt merely to bring a
civil suit.
ISSUES
WON respondent court is correct in reversing the decision of
trial court.
HELD
NO.
Ratio The doctrine of the last clear chance provides as valid
and complete a defense to accident liability. (Picart v Smith)
Reasoning Both drivers, as the Appellate Court found, had
had a full view of each other's vehicle from a distance of one
hundred fifty meters. Both vehicles were travelling at a speed
of approximately thirty kilometers per hour. The private
respondents have admitted that the truck was already at a full
stop when the jeep plowed into it. And they have not seen fit to
deny or impugn petitioners' imputation that they also admitted
the truck had been brought to a stop while the jeep was still
thirty meters away. From these facts the logical conclusion
emerges that the driver of the jeep had what judicial
doctrine has appropriately called the last clear chance to
avoid the accident, while still at that distance of thirty
meters from the truck, by stopping in his turn or swerving his
jeep away from the truck, either of which he had sufficient time
to do while running at a speed of only thirty kilometers per
hour. In those circumstances, his duty was to seize that
opportunity of avoidance, not merely rely on a supposed right
to expect, as the Appellate Court would have it, the truck to
swerve and leave him a clear path.
-Picart v Smith:
The plaintiff was riding a pony on a bridge. Seeing an
automobile ahead he improperly pulled his horse over to the
railing on the right. The driver of the automobile, however
guided his car toward the plaintiff without diminution of speed
until he was only few feet away. He then turned to the right but
passed so closely to the horse that the latter being frightened,
jumped around and was killed by the passing car. . . . .
It goes without saying that the plaintiff himself was not free
from fault, for he was guilty of antecedent negligence in
planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But as we have
already stated, the defendant was also negligent; and in such
case the problem always is to discover which agent is
immediately and directly responsible. It will be noted that the
negligent acts of the two parties were not contemporaneous,
since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the
negligence of the plaintiff by an appreciable interval. Under
these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last
fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is
chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the
prior negligence of the other party.
Dispositive WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the
Intermediate Appellate Court is hereby REVERSED, and the
complaint against herein petitioners in Civil Case No. 3283 of
the Court of First Instance of Bohol, Branch IV, is DISMISSED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
Voting Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ.,
concur.
PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC v CAR BASCOS
BAESA
179 SCRA 384
CORTES J.: November 1989
FACTS:
At about 7:00 o'clock in the morning of June 12, 1981, the
spouses Ceasar and Marilyn Baesa and their children Harold
Jim, Marceline and Maricar, together with spouses David Ico
and Fe O. Ico with their son Erwin Ico and seven other
persons, were aboard a passenger jeepney on their way to a
picnic at Malalam River, Ilagan, Isabela, to celebrate the fifth
wedding anniversary of Ceasar and Marilyn Baesa.
-
Upon reaching the highway, the jeepney turned right and
proceeded to MaIalam, River at a speed of about 20 kph. While
they were proceeding towards Malalam River, a speeding
PANTRANCO bus from Aparri, on its regular route to Manila,
encroached on the jeepney's lane while negotiating a curve,
and collided with it.
- David Ico, spouses Ceasar Baesa and Marilyn Baesa and
their children, Harold Jim and Marcelino Baesa, died while the
rest of the passengers suffered injuries. The jeepney was
extensively damaged. After the accident the driver of the
PANTRANCO Bus, Ambrosio Ramirez, boarded a car and
proceeded to Santiago, Isabela. From that time on up to the
present, Ramirez has never been seen and has apparently
remained in hiding.
- Maricar Baesa through her guardian Francisca O. Bascos
and Fe O. Ico for herself and for her minor children, filed
separate actions for damages arising from quasi-delict against
PANTRANCO. Other victims settled with Bus Company.
-PANTRANCO, aside from pointing to the late David Ico's
alleged negligence as the proximate cause of the accident,
invoked the defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its driver, Ambrosio Ramirez
-TC ruled against PANTRANCO and ordered them to pay
damages.
-Pantranco appealed the decision. Appeal dismissed for lack of
merit
ISSUE:
WON PANTRANCO is liable for damages.
HELD: YES
-Petitioner claims that under the circumstances of the case, it
was the driver of the passenger jeepney who had the last clear
chance to avoid the collision and was therefore negligent in
failing to utilize with reasonable care and competence his then
existing opportunity to avoid the harm.
-petitioner claims that the original negligence of its driver was
not the proximate cause of the accident and that the sole
proximate cause was the supervening negligence of the
jeepney driver David Ico in failing to avoid the accident
- The doctrine of the last clear chance simply, means that the
negligence of a claimant does not preclude a recovery for the
negligence of defendant where it appears that the latter, by
exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided
injurious consequences to claimant notwithstanding his
negligence.
-The doctrine applies only in a situation where the plaintiff was
guilty of prior or antecedent negligence but the defendant, who
had the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and failed
to do so, is made liable for all the consequences of the
accident notwithstanding the prior negligence of the plaintiff
- The above contention of petitioner is manifestly devoid of
merit. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the doctrine of
"last clear chance" finds no application in this case
7
- Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the doctrine of "last
Page
clear chance" finds no application in this case. For the doctrine
to be applicable, it is necessary to show that the person who
allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the accident was
aware of the existence of the peril or should, with exercise of
due care, have been aware of it
- In this case, there is nothing to show that the jeepney driver
David Ico knew of the impending danger. When he saw at a
distance that the approaching bus was encroaching on his
lane, he did not immediately swerve the jeepney to the dirt
shoulder on his right since he must have assumed that the bus
driver will return the bus to its own lane upon seeing the
jeepney approaching from the opposite direction.
- Moreover, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found
that at the time of the accident the Pantranco bus was
speeding towards Manila. At the time David Ico must have
realized that the bus was not returning to its own lane, it was
already too late to swerve the jeepney to his right to prevent an
accident.
- This Court has held that the last clear chance doctrine "can
never apply where the party charged is required to act
instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the
application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have
been discovered"
- Petitioner likewise insists that David Ico was negligent in
failing to observe Section 43 (c), Article III Chapter IV of
Republic Act No. 4136** which provides that the driver of a
vehicle entering a through highway or a stop intersection shall
yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching in either
direction on such through highway.
-Petitioner's misplaced reliance on the aforesaid law is readily
apparent in this case. The cited law itself provides that it
applies only to vehicles entering a through highway or a stop
intersection. At the time of the accident, the jeepney had
already crossed the intersection and was on its way to Malalam
River
-On the issue of its liability as an employer, petitioner claims
that it had observed the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage, conformably to the last paragraph of Article
2180 of the Civil Code
-When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee,
there instantly arises a presumption that the employer has
been negligent either in the selection of his employees or in the
supervision over their acts. Although this presumption is only a
disputable presumption which could be overcome by proof of
diligence of a good father of a family, this Court believes that
the evidence submitted by the defendant to show that it
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family iti the case
of Ramirez, as a company driver is far from sufficient
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v CA (LIPANA)
269 SCRA 695 HERMOSISIMA; March 14, 1997
Nature: Petition to review decision of CA
Facts:
- Rommel's Marketing Corporation (RMC), represented by its
President and General Manager Romeo Lipana, filed a
complaint to recover from the former Philippine Bank of
Commerce (PBC), now absorbed by the Philippine Commercial
International Bank, P304, 979.74 representing various deposits
RMC made in its current account with said bank. The amount
was not credited to RMC’s account but was instead deposited
to the account of one Bienvenido Cotas.
- RMC maintained two separate current accounts with the
Pasig Branch of PBC in connection with its business of selling
appliances.
- From May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976, petitioner Romeo Lipana
claims to have entrusted RMC funds in the form of cash
totalling P304,979.74 to his secretary, Irene Yabut, for the
purpose of depositing said funds in the current accounts of
RMC with PBC. It turned out, however, that these deposits, on
all occasions, were not credited to RMC's account but were
instead deposited to Account No. 53-01734-7 of Yabut's
husband, Bienvenido Cotas who likewise maintains an account
with the same bank.
- During this period, petitioner bank had been regularly
furnishing private respondent with monthly statements showing
its current accounts balances. Unfortunately, it had never been
the practice of Romeo Lipana to check these monthly
statements of account reposing complete trust and confidence
on petitioner bank.
-Irene Yabut would accomplish two copies of the deposit slip,
an original and a duplicate. The original showed the name of
her husband as depositor and his current account number. On
the duplicate copy was written the account number of her
husband but the name of the account holder was left blank.
PBC's teller, Azucena Mabayad, would, however, validate and
stamp both the original and the duplicate of these deposit slips
retaining only the original copy despite the lack of information
on the duplicate slip. The second copy was kept by Irene Yabut
allegedly for record purposes. After validation, Yabut would
then fill up the name of RMC in the space left blank in the
duplicate copy and change the account number written
thereon, which is that of her husband's, and make it appear to
be RMC's account number. With the daily remittance records
also prepared by Ms. Yabut and submitted to private
respondent RMC together with the validated duplicate slips
with the latter's name and account number, she made her
company believe that all the while the amounts she deposited
were being credited to its account when, in truth and in fact,
they were being deposited by her and credited by the petitioner
bank in the account of Cotas.
- Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, RMC demanded from
petitioner bank the return of its money, but as its demand went
unheeded, it filed a collection suit before RTC Pasig, which
found petitioner bank negligent and ordered the bank and
Mabayad to pay RMC jointly and severally P304,979.72, plus
damages, attornet’s fees and costs of suit.
- CA affirmed, but modified the award of damages.
Issue:
Whether the proximate cause of the loss, to the tune of
P304,979.74, suffered by the private respondent RMC is
petitioner bank's negligence or that of private respondent's.
Held:
It was the negligence of Ms. Azucena Mabayad, coupled by the
negligence of the petitioner bank in the selection and
supervision of its bank teller, which was the proximate cause of
the loss suffered by the private respondent.
- There are three elements of a quasi-delict: (a) damages
suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the
defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must
respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between
the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages
incurred by the plaintiff.
- Negligence is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man
would do.
- Picart v. Smith. The test by which to determine the
existence of negligence in a particular case: Did the
defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent
person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he
is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the
standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of
8
the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of
Page
negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to
the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him.
The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or
negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and
determines liability by that.
- the bank's teller, Ms. Azucena Mabayad, was negligent in
validating, officially stamping and signing all the deposit slips
prepared and presented by Ms. Yabut, despite the glaring fact
that the duplicate copy was not completely accomplished
contrary to the self-imposed procedure of the bank with respect
to the proper validation of deposit slips, original or duplicate.
- Negligence here lies not only on the part of Ms. Mabayad but
also on the part of the bank itself in its lackadaisical selection
and supervision of Ms. Mabayad.
- Proximate cause is determined on the facts of each case
upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and
precedent. Proximate cause is "that cause, which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred. . . ." In this case, absent the
act of Ms. Mabayad in negligently validating the incomplete
duplicate copy of the deposit slip, Ms. Irene Yabut would not
have the facility with which to perpetrate her fraudulent scheme
with impunity.
- Furthermore, under the doctrine of "last clear chance" (also
referred to, at times as "supervening negligence" or as
"discovered peril"), petitioner bank was indeed the culpable
party. This doctrine, in essence, states that where both parties
are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later
in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the
incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the
consequences thereof. Stated differently, the rule would also
mean that an antecedent negligence of a person does not
preclude the recovery of damages for the supervening
negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by
another, if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have
avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
Here, assuming that private respondent RMC was negligent in
entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, thus providing the
latter with the opportunity to defraud the company, as
advanced by the petitioner, yet it cannot be denied that the
petitioner bank, thru its teller, had the last clear opportunity to
avert the injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully
observing their self-imposed validation procedure.
- While it is true that had private respondent checked the
monthly statements of account sent by the petitioner bank to
RMC, the latter would have discovered the loss early on, such
cannot be used by the petitioners to escape liability. This
omission on the part of the private respondent does not change
the fact that were it not for the wanton and reckless negligence
of the petitioners' employee in validating the incomplete
duplicate deposit slips presented by Ms. Irene Yabut, the loss
would not have occurred. Considering, however, that the fraud
was committed in a span of more than one (1) year covering
various deposits, common human experience dictates that the
same would not have been possible without any form of
collusion between Ms. Yabut and bank teller Mabayad. Ms.
Mabayad was negligent in the performance of her duties as
bank teller nonetheless.
- it cannot be denied that private respondent was likewise
negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account.
Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the
series of frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary.
The damage would definitely not have ballooned to such an
amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised
even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This omission by
RMC amounts to contributory negligence which shall mitigate
the damages that may be awarded to the private respondent
under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code
Disposition CA decision modified. The demands of substantial
justice are satisfied by allocating the damage on a 60-40 ratio.
Thus, 40% of the damage awarded by the respondent
appellate court, except the award of P25,000.00 attorney's
fees, shall be borne by private respondent RMC; only the
balance of 60% needs to be paid by the petitioners. The award
of attorney's fees shall be borne exclusively by the petitioners.
PADILLA [dissent]
- the doctrine of "last clear chance" assumes that the
negligence of the defendant was subsequent to the negligence
of the plaintiff and the same must be the proximate cause of
the injury. In short, there must be a last and a clear chance, not
a last possible chance, to avoid the accident or injury. It must
have been a chance as would have enabled a reasonably
prudent man in like position to have acted effectively to avoid
the injury and the resulting damage to himself.
- the bank was not remiss in its duty of sending monthly bank
statements to private respondent RMC so that any error or
discrepancy in the entries therein could be brought to the
bank's attention at the earliest opportunity. Private respondent
failed to examine these bank statements not because it was
prevented by some cause in not doing so, but because it was
purposely negligent as it admitted that it does not normally
check bank statements given by banks. It was private
respondent who had the last and clear chance to prevent any
further misappropriation by Yabut had it only reviewed the
status of its current accounts on the bank statement sent to it
monthly or regularly. Since a sizable amount of cash was
entrusted to Yabut, private respondent should, at least, have
taken care of its concerns, as what the law presumes. Its
negligence, therefore, is not contributory but the immediate and
proximate cause of its injury.
ONG VS METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
L-7644 August 29, 1958
FACTS
 Metropolitan owns 3 swimming pools at its filters in Balara,
Quezon City
 IIt charges the public a certain fee if such wanted to use its
pools
 Dominador Ong, 14 years of age, son of petitioners,
went to the pools along with his 2 brothers
 He stayed in the shallow pool, but then he told his
brothers that he would get something to drink. His
brothers left him and went to the Deep pool.
 Around 4pm that day, a bather reported that one
person was swimming to long under water
 Upon hearing this, the lifeguard on duty dove into the pool
to retrieve Ong’s lifeless body. Applying first aid, the
lifeguard tried to revive the boy.
 Soon after, male nurse Armando Rule came to render
assistance, followed by sanitary inspector Iluminado
Vicente who, after being called by phone from the
clinic by one of the security guards, boarded a
jeep carrying with him the resuscitator and a
medicine kit, and upon arriving he injected the boy
with camphorated oil. After the injection, Vicente left on
a jeep in order to fetch Dr. Ayuyao from the University
of the Philippines. Meanwhile, Aba ٌo continued the
artificial manual respiration, and when this failed to
revive him, they applied the resuscitator until the two
oxygen tanks were exhausted
 Investigation was concluded and the cause of death is
9
asphyxia by submersion in water (pagkalunod)
Page
 The parents of Ong bring this action for damages
against Metropolitan, alleging negligence on the
selection and supervision of its employees and if not
negligent, they had the last clear chance to revive Ong.
 It is to be noted that Metropolitan had complete safety
measures in place: they had a male nurse, six
lifeguards, ring buoys, toy roof, towing line, saving kit
and a resuscitator. There is also a sanitary inspector who
is in charge of a clinic established for the benefit of the
patrons. Defendant has also on display in a conspicuous
place certain rules and regulations governing the use of
the pools, one of which prohibits the swimming in the pool
alone or without any attendant. Although defendant does
not maintain a full- time physician in the swimming pool
compound, it has however a nurse and a sanitary
inspector ready to administer injections or operate the
oxygen resuscitator if the need should arise
ISSUE:
1. W/N Metropolitan is liable to the Ongs for
its negligence
2. W/N the last clear chance doctrine may
be invoked in this case
HELD:
1. No. Metropolitan is not negligent
Metropolitan has taken all necessary precautions to avoid
danger to the lives of its patrons. It has been shown that the
swimming pools of appellee are provided with a ring buoy, toy
roof, towing line, oxygen resuscitator and a first aid medicine
kit. The bottom of the pools is painted with black colors so as
to insure clear visibility. There is on display in a conspicuous
place within the area certain rules and regulations
governing the use of the pools. Appellee employs six
lifeguards who are all trained as they had taken a course
for that purpose and were issued certificates of
proficiency. These lifeguards work on schedule
prepared by their chief and arranged in such a way as
to have two guards at a time on duty to look after the
safety of the bathers. There is a male nurse and a
sanitary inspector with a clinic provided with
oxygen resuscitator. And there are security guards
who are available always in case of emergency.
The record also shows that when the body of the minor Ong
was retrieved from the bottom of the pool, the employees of
appellee did everything possible to bring him back to life.
When they found that the pulse of the boy was abnormal, the
inspector immediately injected him with camphorated oil.
When the manual artificial respiration proved ineffective
they applied the oxygen resuscitator until its contents were
exhausted. And while all these efforts were being made,
they sent for Dr. Ayuyao from the University of the
Philippines who however came late because
upon examining the body found him to be already
dead. All of the foregoing shows that appellee has
done what is humanly possible under the
circumstances to restore life to minor Ong and for that
reason it is unfair to hold it liable for his death
2. The Last Clear Chance Doctrine is inapplicable
in this case
The record does not show how minor Ong came into
the big swimming pool. The only thing the record
discloses is that minor Ong informed his elder brothers
that he was going to the locker room to drink a bottle
of coke but that from that time on nobody knew what
happened to him until his lifeless body was
retrieved. The doctrine of last clear chance simply
means that the negligence of a claimant does not
preclude a recovery for the negligence of defendant
where it appears that the latter, by exercising
reasonable care and prudence, might have
avoided injurious consequences to claimant
notwithstanding his negligence.
Since it is not known how minor Ong came into the big
swimming pool and it being apparent that he went
there without any companion in violation of one of
the regulations of appellee as regards the use of the
pools, and it appearing that lifeguard
Abaٌoresponded to the call for help as soon as his
attention was called to it and immediately after
retrieving the body all efforts at the disposal of
appellee had been put into play in order to bring him
back to life, it is clear that there is no room for
the application of the doctrine now invoked by
appellants to impute liability to appellee.
ANURAN V BUÑO
17 SCRA 224 BENGZON, May 20, 1966
NATURE: Petition for Review by certiorari of CA decision.
FACTS
- On January 12, 1958, a passenger jeepney was parked on
the road to Taal, Batangas. Buño, driver of said jeepney
stopped his vehicle in order to allow one of his passengers to
alight. But he parked his jeepney in such a way that ½ of its
width (the left wheels) was on the asphalted pavement of the
road and the other half, on the right shoulder of the said road.
A motor truck speeding along, negligently bumped it from
behind, which such violence that three of its passengers died,
even as 2 other passengers suffered injuries that required their
confinement at the Provincial Hospital for many days.
- Suits were instituted by the representatives of the dead and
the injured, to recover consequently damages against the
drivers and the owners of the trucks and also against the driver
and the owners of the jeepney.
- CFI Batangas absolved the driver of the jeepney and its
owners, but it required the truck driver and the owners o make
compensation. Plaintiffs appealed to the CA insisting that the
driver and the owners of the jeepney should also be made
liable for damages.
ISSUE
WON the driver and owners of the jeepney should also be
made liable.
HELD
YES. An error of law was committed in releasing the jeepney
from liability. It must be remembered that the obligation of the
carrier to transport its passengers safely is such that the New
Civil Code requires “utmost diligence” from the carriers (Art.
1755) who are “presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently, unless they prove that they have observed
extraordinary diligence” (Art. 1756). In this instance, this legal
presumption of negligence is confirmed by the CA’s finding that
jeepney driver in question was at fault in parking the vehicle
improperly. It must follow that the driver – and the owners – of
the jeepney must answer for injuries to its passengers.
Obiter on Application of Principle of Last Clear Chance: The
principle about the “last clear chance” applies in a suit between
the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. It does not
arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the
carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be
10
inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and
its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise
Page
guilty of negligence. This principle does not apply in this case.
DISPOSITION: Judgment modified.
RAYNERA VS HICETAL PARDO
(G.R. No. 120027) (21 April 1999)
FACTS:
 On March 23, 1989, at about 2:00 in the morning,
Reynaldo Raynera was on his way home. He was riding a
motorcycle traveling on the southbound lane of East
Service Road, Cupang, Muntinlupa. The Isuzu truck was
travelling ahead of him at 20 to 30 kilometers per hour.
The truck was loaded with two (2) metal sheets
extended on both sides, two (2) feet on the left and three
(3) feet on the right. There were two (2) pairs of red
lights, about 35 watts each, on both sides of the metal
plates. The asphalt road was not well lighted.
 At some point on the road, Reynaldo Raynera crashed
his motorcycle into the left rear portion of the truck trailer,
which was without tail lights. Due to the collision,
Reynaldo sustained head injuries and he was rushed to
the hospital where he was declared dead on arrival.
 Edna Raynera, widow of Reynaldo, filed with the RTC
a complaint for damages against respondents Hiceta and
Orpilla, owner and driver of the Isuzu truck.
 At the trial, petitioners presented Virgilio Santos. He
testified that at about 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning of
March 23, 1989, he and his wife went to Alabang, market,
on board a tricycle. They passed by the service road
going south, and saw a parked truck trailer, with its
hood open and without tail lights. They would have
bumped the truck but the tricycle driver was quick in
avoiding a collision. The place was dark, and the truck
had no early warning device to alert passing motorists.
 Trial court: respondent’s negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of Raynera’s death.
 CA: The appellate court held that Reynaldo Raynera's
bumping into the left rear portion of the truck was the
proximate cause or his death, and consequently,
absolved respondents from liability.
ISSUE:
1. whether respondents were negligent, and if so,
2. whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the
death of Reynaldo Raynera.
HELD:
We find that the direct cause of the accident was the
negligence of the victim. Traveling
behind the truck, he had the responsibility of avoiding
bumping the vehicle in front of him. He was in control of the
situation. His motorcycle was equipped with headlights to
enable him to see what was in front of him. He was
traversing the service road where the prescribed
speed limit was less than that in the highway.
Traffic investigator Cpl. Virgilio del Monte testified that
two pairs of 50-watts bulbs were on top of the steel
plates, which were visible from a distance of 100
meters Virgilio Santos admitted that from the tricycle
where he was on board, he saw the truck and its
cargo of iron plates from a distance of ten (10) meters.
In light of these circumstances, an accident could have
been easily avoided, unless the victim had been
driving too fast
and did not exercise dues care and prudence
demanded of him under the circumstances. Virgilio
Santos' testimony strengthened respondents' defense
that it was the victim who was reckless and negligent
in driving his motorcycle at high speed. The tricycle
where
Santos was on board was not much different from the
victim's motorcycle that figured in the accident.
Although Santos claimed the tricycle almost bumped
into the improperly parked truck, the tricycle driver was
able to avoid hitting the truck.
It has been said that drivers of vehicles "who bump
the rear of another vehicle" are presumed to be "the
cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other
evidence". The rationale behind the presumption is
that the driver of the rear vehicle has full control of the
situation as he is in a position to observe the vehicle in
front of him.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the
responsibility to avoid the collision with the
front vehicle lies with the driver of the rear vehicle.
CANLAS V, CA
Purisima; February 28, 2000
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari
Facts:
-Sometime in August, 1982, Osmundo S. Canlas, and Vicente
Mañosca, decided to venture in business and to raise the
capital needed therefor. The former then executed a Special
Power of Attorney authorizing the latter to mortgage two
parcels of land situated in San Dionisio, (BF Homes)
Paranaque, Metro Manila, each lot with semi-concrete
residential house in the name of the SPS Canlas. Osmundo
Canlas agreed to sell the said parcels of land to Vicente
Mañosca, for and in consideration of P850,000.00,
P500,000.00 of which payable within one week, and the
balance of P350,000.00 to serve as his (Osmundo's)
investment in the business. Thus, Osmundo Canlas delivered
to Vicente Mañosca the transfer certificates of title of the
parcels of land involved. Vicente Mañosca, as his part of the
transaction, issued two postdated checks in favor of Osmundo
Canlas in the amounts of P40,000.00 and P460,000.00,
respectively, but it turned out that the check covering the
bigger amount was not sufficiently funded.
-On September 3, 1982, Vicente Mañosca was able to
mortgage the same parcels of land for P100,000.00 to a certain
Attorney Manuel Magno, with the help of impostors who
misrepresented themselves as the spouses, Osmundo Canlas
and Angelina Canlas. On September 29, 1982, private
respondent Vicente Mañosca was granted a loan by the
respondent Asian Savings Bank (ASB) in the amount of
P500,000.00, with the use of subject parcels of land as
security, and with the involvement of the same impostors who
again introduced themselves as the Canlas spouses. When the
loan it extended was not paid, respondent bank extrajudicially
foreclosed the mortgage.
-On January 15, 1983, Osmundo Canlas wrote a letter
informing the respondent bank that the execution of subject
mortgage over the two parcels of land in question was without
their (Canlas spouses) authority, and request that steps be
taken to annul and/or revoke the questioned mortgage. On
January 18, 1983, petitioner Osmundo Canlas also wrote the
office of Sheriff Maximo O. Contreras, asking that the auction
sale scheduled on February 3, 1983 be cancelled or held in
abeyance. But respondents Maximo C. Contreras and Asian
Savings Bank refused to heed petitioner Canlas' stance and
proceeded with the scheduled auction sale.
-Consequently, on February 3, 1983 the herein petitioners
instituted the present case for annulment of deed of real estate
mortgage with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
11
injunction; and on May 23, 1983, the trial court issued an Order
restraining the respondent sheriff from issuing the
Page
corresponding Certificate of Sheriff's Sale.For failure to file his
answer, despite several motions for extension of time for the
filing thereof, Vicente Mañosca was declared in default. Lower
court a quo came out with a decision annulling subject deed of
mortgage and disposing. Asian Savings Bank appealed to the
Court of Appeals and CA reversed the lower court decision.
Issue/s and Held
WON CA erred in holding that the mortgage is valid
Settled is the rule that a contract of mortgage must be
constituted only by the absolute owner on the property
mortgaged; a mortgage, constituted by an impostor is void.
Considering that it was established indubitably that the contract
of mortgage sued upon was entered into and signed by
impostors who misrepresented themselves as the spouses
Osmundo Canlas and Angelina Canlas, the Court is of the
ineluctible conclusion and finding that subject contract of
mortgage is a complete nullity.
WON ASB must incur the resulting loss
Yes. The doctrine of last clear chance is applicable, the
respondent bank must suffer the resulting loss. In essence, the
doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect that where both
parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably
later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought
about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last
clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do
so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom.
Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent negligence of
a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by
the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair
chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence.
In the case under consideration, from the evidence on hand it
can be gleaned unerringly that respondent bank did not
observe the requisite diligence in ascertaining or verifying the
real identity of the couple who introduced themselves as the
spouses Osmundo Canlas and Angelina Canlas. It is worthy to
note that not even a single identification card was exhibited by
the said impostors to show their true identity; and yet, the bank
acted on their representations simply on the basis of the
residence certificates bearing signatures which tended to
match the signatures affixed on a previous deed of mortgage to
a certain Atty. Magno, covering the same parcels of land in
question.
Applying Art. 1173 It could be said that the degree of diligence
required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family
in keeping with their responsibility to exercise the necessary
care and prudence in dealing even on a registered or titled
property. The business of a bank is affected with public
interest, holding in trust the money of the depositors, which
bank deposits the bank should guard against loss due to
negligence or bad faith, by reason of which the bank would be
denied the protective mantle of the land registration law,
accorded only to purchasers or mortgagees for value and in
good faith.
Evidently, the efforts exerted by the bank to verify the identity
of the couple posing as Osmundo Canlas and Angelina Canlas
fell short of the responsibility of the bank to observe more than
the diligence of a good father of a family. The negligence of
respondent bank was magnified by the fact that the previous
deed of mortgage (which was used as the basis for checking
the genuineness of the signatures of the supposed Canlas
spouses) did not bear the tax account number of the spouses,
as well as the Community Tax Certificate of Angelina Canlas.
But such fact notwithstanding, the bank did not require the
impostors to submit additional proof of their true identity.
For not observing the degree of diligence required of banking
institutions, whose business is impressed with public interest,
respondent Asian Savings Bank has to bear the loss sued
upon.
Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the Decision of
the Court of Appeals, dated September 30, 1993, in CA-G.R.
CV No. 25242 SET ASIDE. The Decision of Branch 59 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Civil Case No. M-028 is
hereby REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.1âwphi1.nêt
CONSOLIDATED BANK V CA (L.C.DIAZ AND CO.)
GR No. 138569 CARPIO; September 11, 2003
NATURE: Review of the decision of the CA
FACTS:
- LC Diaz is a professional partnership engaged in accounting.
On 14 August 1991, LC diaz, thru its cashier, instructed their
messenger, Calapre, to deposit money in Solidbank. Calapre
then deposited in Solidbank. Since the transaction took time
and Calapre had to make another deposit for L.C. Diaz with
Allied Bank, he left the passbook with Solidbank. When he
came back, the teller told him that somebody else got the
passbook. The next day, it was learned that 300k was
withdrawn from the account.
- An information for estafa was filed against one of their
messengers (Ilagan) and one Roscoe Verdazola. LC Diaz
demanded SolidBank the return of their money. The latter
refused and a case for recovery of a sum of money was filed
against them
- TC applied rules on savings account written on the
passbook. The rules state that “possession of this book shall
raise the presumption of ownership and any payment or
payments made by the bank upon the production of the said
book and entry therein of the withdrawal shall have the same
effect as if made to the depositor personally.” Also, they
applied the rule that the holder of the passport is presumed the
owner. It was also held that Solidbank did not have any
participation in the custody and care of the passbook and as
such, their act was not the proximate cause of the loss. The
proximate cause was LC Diaz’ negligence.
- CA revered. It ruled that Solidbank’s negligence was the
proximate cause. It applied the provision on the CC on quasi
delicts and found that the requisite elements were present.
They found that the teller made no inquiry upon the withdrawal
of 300k. The teller could have called up LC Diaz since the
amount being drawn was significant. The appellate court ruled
that while L.C. Diaz was also negligent in entrusting its
deposits to its messenger and its messenger in leaving the
passbook with the teller, Solidbank could not escape liability
because of the doctrine of “last clear chance.” Solidbank could
have averted the injury suffered by L.C. Diaz had it called up
L.C. Diaz to verify the withdrawal.
ISSUES: WON Solidbank was liable
HELD
- For breach of the savings deposit agreement due to
negligence, or culpa contractual, the bank is liable to its
depositor.
- When the passbook is in the possession of Solidbank’s tellers
during withdrawals, the law imposes on Solidbank and its
tellers an even higher degree of diligence in safeguarding the
passbook. Likewise, Solidbank’s tellers must exercise a high
degree of diligence in insuring that they return the passbook
12
only to the depositor or his authorized representative
- In culpa contractual, once the plaintiff proves a breach of
Page
contract, there is a presumption that the defendant was at fault
or negligent. The burden is on the defendant to prove that he
was not at fault or negligent. Solidbank failed to discharge this
burden. (they could have presented the teller to whom the
passbook was left, but they didn’t)
- L.C. Diaz was not at fault that the passbook landed in the
hands of the impostor. Solidbank was in possession of the
passbook while it was processing the deposit. After completion
of the transaction, Solidbank had the contractual obligation to
return the passbook only to Calapre, the authorized
representative of L.C. Diaz. SolidBank’s negligence in returning
the passbook was the proximate cause.
- The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both
parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably
later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one
who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to
do so, is chargeable with the loss. Stated differently, the
antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude him
from recovering damages caused by the supervening
negligence of the defendant, who had the last fair chance to
prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
- We do not apply the doctrine of last clear chance to the
present case. Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to
negligence in the performance of its contractual obligation to
L.C. Diaz. This is a case of culpa contractual, where neither the
contributory negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance
to avoid the loss, would exonerate the defendant from liability.
Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by the
plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by
the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his
breach of contract.
DISPOSITIVE:Decision affirmed, modification only to damages
and he should not proceed if he cannot do so in safety. For
failing to observe the duty of diligence and care imposed on
drivers of vehicles abandoning their lane, petitioner must be
held liable. Iran could not be faulted when in his attempt to
avoid the pick-up, he swerved to his left. Petitioner’s acts had
put Iran in an emergency situation which forced him to act
quickly. An individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation
of danger and is required to act without much time to consider
the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better
solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own
negligence.
Reasoning The doctrine of last clear chance states that a
person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding
an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his
opponent, is considered in law solely responsible for the
consequences of the accident. But what has been shown is the
presence of an emergency and the proper application of the
emergency rule. There was no clear chance to speak of. Iran
swerved to the left only to avoid petitioner’s pick-up, which was
already on a head to head position going against Iran’s
Tamaraw jeepney immediately before the vehicles collided. No
convincing proof was adduced by petitioner that Iran could
have avoided a head-on collision.
Dispositive
The appealed decision is AFFIRMED.

ENGADA V CA
QUISUMBING, J.: June 20, 2003

NATURE
Petition for review seeking the reversal of the decision of the
CA which affirmed with modification the judgment of the RTC
of Iloilo City

FACTS
- On November 29, 1989, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, Edwin
Iran was driving a blue Toyota Tamaraw jeepney bound for
Iloilo City. On board was Sheila Seyan, the registered owner of
the Tamaraw. The Tamaraw passengers allegedly saw from
the opposite direction a speeding Isuzu pick-up, driven by
petitioner Rogelio Engada. When it was just a few meters away
from the Tamaraw, the Isuzu pick-up’s right signal light flashed,
at the same time, it swerved to its left, encroaching upon the
lane of the Tamaraw and headed towards a head-on collision
course with it. Seyan shouted at Iran to avoid the pick-up. Iran
swerved to his left but the pick-up also swerved to its right.
Thus, the pick-up collided with the Tamaraw, hitting the latter at
its right front passenger side. The impact caused the head and
chassis of the Tamaraw to separate from its body. Seyan was
thrown out of the Tamaraw and landed on a ricefield. Seyan
incurred P130,000 in medical expenses. The Toyota Tamaraw
jeepney ended up in the junk heap. Its total loss was computed
at P80,000.

ISSUES
1. WON petitioner’s negligence was the proximate cause of the
accident
13

HELD
1. YES. Ratio It is a settled rule that a driver abandoning his
Page

proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an

ordinary situation has the duty to see to it that the road is clear