DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL POINTS (#2 & #3)

Doctrine of last clear chance vis-à-vis Article 2179 of the Civil Code
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)
Generally, negligence on the part of the plaintiff will not defeat a claim for damages in
quasi-delict if it was not the proximate and primary cause of the injury but only contributed to
his harm.1 Consequently under the first clause of Article 2179 of the Civil Code, it specifically
provided that the defendant can raise the defense of plaintiff’s own negligence as the proximate
cause in order not to be liable for damages.
The Supreme Court defined proximate cause in the case of LAMBERT S. RAMOS V C.O.L.
REALTY CORPORATION2 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. And more comprehensively, 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 therefrom3.
Hence, under Article 2179 of the Civil Code, it illustrated the concept of proximate cause
wherein when the plaintiff’s own negligence was the proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. On the other hand, the second clause of the aforementioned article provides the
concept of contributory negligence where the negligence is the conduct on the part of the injured
party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to
which he is required to conform for his own protection.4
On the other hand, the doctrine of last chance was provided in the case of Philippine National
Railways v. Brunty5 as follows:

1
The Concept and Advocacy of Quasi-Delict, 63 SCRA 236, March 25, 1975
2
G.R. No. 164749
3
G.R. No. 184905 August 28, 2009 citing the case of McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68102, July
16, 1992, 211 SCRA 517
4
Sealoader Shipping Corporation vs. Grand Cement Manufacturing Corporation 638 SCRA 488, G.R. No. 167363
December 15, 2010
5
GR No. 168891 Nov 2, 2006 605 SCRA 685
 “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 plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering
damages caused by the supervening negligence of defendant, who had the last fair chance
to prevent the impending harm by exercise of due diligence.
Verily, the application of the doctrine of last clear chance vis-à-vis the concept of contributory
negligence was explained in cases involving transportation accidents and banking transactions.
The two concepts were applied in the case of SEALOADER SHIPPING CORPORATION VS.
GRAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION6, a case involving a transportation
accident where Sealoader argues that the crew at the wharf of Grand Cement was negligent as it
failed to cast off mooring lines to Sealoader which resulted to the damage of the wharf.
It was illustrated in the abovementioned case that for the doctrine of last clear chance to be
applicable, it presumes that the negligence of the injured party ceased, and the alleged negligence
of the other party came at the later time. If such negligence did not cease, the doctrine of last
clear chance cannot be applied. While on contributory negligence is a conduct on the part of the
injured party, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform, failure to do
cause to the harm he has suffered.
Parenthetically, in the case of ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION VS. BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS7, the doctrine of last clear chance and that of contributory negligence
under Article 2179 was illustrated. In this case, a one-year post-dated check was accepted for
deposit by Allied Banking after such check was cleared by Bank of the Philippine Island. The
court held that despite the failure of the drawee bank to return within 24-hour reglementary
period, the collecting bank is still guilty of contributory negligence.
The court enunciated in the case that, the diligence required of banks is more than that of a good
father of a family, it required the highest degree of diligence. In a doctrine of last clear chance,
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. Moreover, in situations where the doctrine has
been applied, it was defendant’s failure to exercise such ordinary care, having the last clear
chance to avoid loss or injury, which was the proximate cause of the occurrence of such loss or
injury.8
In the same case, citing the PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE V. COURT OF APPEALS,
though a party was held to be culpable under the doctrine of last clear chance, it nevertheless
ruled that the injured party must also be held accountable in the lost due to contributory
negligence. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to mitigate the damages that must be awarded to
6
G.R. No. 167363 December 15, 2010
7
692 SCRA 186, G.R. No. 188363 February 27, 2013
8
ibid
the injured party, especially since his conduct contributed to the legal cause to the harm that he
has suffered.
It must be noted that there are damages in which does not give rise to a cause of action, as
illustrated in the case of BPI EXPRESS CARD CORP. V CA 9, the Court defined the concept of
damnum absque injuria, wherein the law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act
which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. Hence, whatever is compensable damage
under Article 2179 must be that resulting to a legal injury.
Accordingly, there is a relationship between negligence or fault and damage. There must be clear
showing on which was the cause of the damage and identification of who was negligent as it
determines who shall bear the liability for damages.10

9
G.R. No. 120639 September 25, 1998
10
Quasi-Delict/Negligence/Extraordinary Diligence, 467 SCRA 586, August 22, 2005
IN WHAT CASES DOES THE COURT COMMONLY APPLY IT TO AND ARE THERE
LAWS (SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL) WHICH IT RUNS COUNTER TO IN THE
PROCESS.
VEHICULAR ACCIDENTS
GENERAL RULE: The doctrine of last clear chance is most commonly applied in cases
involving vehicular accidents, such as in the case of PICART VS SMITH 11 where despite the
plaintiff being found guilty of negligence for being on the wrong side of the bridge, the
defendant is nevertheless liable for legal damages as he has the fair opportunity to avoid
collision, yet he had failed to do so.
EXCEPTION: The doctrine of last clear chance is inapplicable in cases involving vehicular
accidents when it falls under the SUDDEN EMERGENCY RULE. The rule provides that when
the 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 as provided in the case of MARIKINA AUTO LINE VS AUTO LINE TRANSPORT
CORP12.
In addition, as ruled in the case of BUSTAMANTE VS COURT OF APPEALS 13, the doctrine is
not applicable where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations; the doctrine of last clear chance can only be invoked in suits involving
owners and drivers of colliding vehicles.

WARNING DEVICES ON ROADS

GENERAL RULE: The court in the case of PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUST LINES INC VS
SINFROSO MACALINAO ET AL14, where an immobilized tractor was left in the middle of the
road which prompted the high speeding bus to avoid the said tractor which resulted for it to crash
to another vehicle. The court applied the doctrine of last clear chance, stating that when there are
sufficient improvised early warning devices, the driver had the last clear chance to avoid such
collision.
EXCEPTION: The doctrine was not applied in the case of PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
RAILWAYS CORP. VS VIZCARA15 as the railway corporation was negligent in ensuring that
motorists are provided with adequate signages hence absence of such, the public are not provided

11
Picart vs. Smith., 37 Phil. 809, No. 12219 March 15, 1918
12
Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation vs. People, 486 SCRA 284, G.R. No. 152040 March 31, 2006
13
Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 603, G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991 citing of Philippine Rabbit Bus
Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. Nos. 66102-04, August 30, 1990
14
Philippine Rabbit Bust Lines Inc v. Sinfroso Macalinao Et Al G.R. No. 141856, February 11, 2005
15
Philippine National Railways Corporation vs. Vizcara, 666 SCRA 363, G.R. No. 190022 February 15, 2012
sufficient notice of an impending danger. Further, there was absence of any act manifesting that
the victims had disregarded their own safety, hence no application of the doctrine.

TRANSACTIONS IN BANKING INSTITUTIONS

GENERAL RULE: In the case of ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION VS BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS16, there was an encashment of a post-dated check one year from its
presentment. The court ruled that the collecting bank is guilty of contributory negligence when it
accepted for deposit a post-dated check notwithstanding that said check had been cleared by the
drawee bank which failed to return the check within the 24-hour reglementary period. Hence, the
doctrine of last clear chance should be applied holding both parties liable for damages.
Subsequently, this ruling was upheld in the more recent case of BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS VS SPOUSES QUIAOIT17 where the court reiterated that lapses in processing bank
transactions which resulted from failure to exercise extraordinary diligence, the bank must be
held to bear the damages as it could have exercise last clear chance in ensuring bona fide
transactions.
In the case of CANLAS VS CA18, a mortgage was made by the impostors who misrepresented
themselves as the spouses Canlas to respondent bank, Asian Savings Bank. The Supreme Court
applied the doctrine of last clear chance stating that the degree of diligence required of banks is
more than that of a good father of a family, hence failure to exercise such, it is only proper that
the mortgage be declared a nullity since it was constituted not by the owners of the property.
EXCEPTION: In the case of CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION VS.
COURT OF APPEALS19, the court enunciated that the doctrine of last clear chance cannot be
applied when a bank had breach a contractual obligation which results to a case of culpa
contractual. The determination of fault or negligence which would exonerate a party from
liability, as in the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable only in cases involving culpa
aquiliana.

16
Allied Banking Corporation vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 692 SCRA 186, G.R. No. 188363 February 27, 2013
17
Bank of the Philippine Islands and Ana C. Gonzales Vs. Spouses Fernando V. Quiaoit and Nora L. Quiaoit, G.R. No.
199562, January 16, 2019
18
Canlas vs. Court of Appeals, 326 SCRA 415, G.R. No. 112160 February 28, 2000
19
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation vs. Court of Appeals 410 SCRA 562, G.R. No. 138569 September 11,
2003