PLDT v. CA and Sps.

Antonio and Gloria Esteban

Facts:
1) Petitioner PLDT was sued for the injuries sustained by the respondents when their jeep
ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation allegedly
undertaken by PLDT.
2) The complaint alleged that respondent Antonio Esteban failed to notice the open trench
which was left uncovered because of the creeping darkness and the lack of any warning
light or signs.
3) As a result of the accident, respondent Gloria Esteban allegedly sustained injuries on her
arms, legs and face, leaving a permanent scar on her cheek, while the respondent husband
suffered cut lips.
4) PLDT, in its answer, denies liability on the contention that the injuries sustained by
respondent spouses were the result of their own negligence.
Issue:
Whether Petitioner PLDT should be held liable for the injuries sustained by the
respondents?
Rulling:
No. The accident was due to the lack of diligence of Antonio, and was not imputable to
the negligent omission on the part of PLDT. The Court observes the following factual
circumstances. First. Plaintiff's jeep was running along the inside lane. If it had remained on that
inside lane, it would not have hit the ACCIDENT MOUND. Second. The jeep must have been
running quite fast. If the jeep was running at 25 km per hour as claimed by the respondent, he
could have braked the vehicle the moment it struck the ACCIDENT MOUND. Third. With the
drizzle, he should not have run on dim lights, but should have put on his regular lights which
should have made him see the accident mound in time. The mound was relatively big and visible,
being 2-3 ft high and 1-1/2 ft wide. Furthermore, he knew of the existence and location of the
mound, having seen it many previous times.
The omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of the
excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act would
have prevented the injury. As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on that street almost
everyday and had knowledge of the presence and location of the excavations there; hence, the
presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident. Furthermore,
Antonio had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence he
imputes to PLDT.
It is basic that private respondents cannot charge PLDT for their injuries where their own
failure to exercise due and reasonable care was the cause thereof.

Nubbin Paul C. Lagumbay JD - II

Note:
Last Clear Chance
a rule of law in determining responsibility for damages caused by negligence, which
provides that if the plaintiff (the party suing for damages) is negligent, that will not matter if the
defendant (the party being sued for damages caused by his/her negligence) could have still
avoided the accident by reasonable care in the final moments (no matter how slight) before the
accident. The theory is that although the plaintiff may have been negligent, his/her negligence no
longer was the cause of the accident because the defendant could have prevented the accident.
Most commonly applied to auto accidents, a typical case of last clear chance would be when one
driver drifts over the center line, and this action was noted by an oncoming driver who proceeds
without taking simple evasive action, crashes into the first driver and is thus liable for the
injuries to the first driver who was over the line. In the few states which apply the strict
"contributory negligence" rule which keeps a negligent plaintiff from recovering damages from a
negligent defendant, "last clear chance" can save the careless plaintiff's lawsuit.

Nubbin Paul C. Lagumbay JD - II