Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
|TraceyJanuray23,1907
FACTS
PlaintiffRakeswasoneofthelaborersofdefendant,transporting
ironrailsfromthebargeintheharbortodefendantsyard.Piledlengthwiseon2
handcarswere7railssuchthattheendsoftherailsprotrudedbeyondthecars.
Therailslayupon2crosspiecesorsillssecuredtothecarsbutwithoutsideguards
topreventthemfromslippingoff.Nearthewatersedge,thetrackssagged,thetie
broke,therailsslidoffandcaughtplaintiff,resultinginabrokenlegwhichwas
subsequentlyamputated.
Plaintiffallegesthatdefendantwasnegligentinnotprovidedside
guardsonthecars,andthatthetrackshadnofishplates.Defendantadmitted
absenceofsideguardsandfailedtoeffectivelyovercometheplaintiffsproofthat
nofishplatesexisted.
Thesaggingofthetrackswasfoundtohavebeencausedbythe
waterofthebayraisedbyarecenttyphoon.Itwasntprovedthatthecompany
inspectedthetrackafterthetyphoonorthatithadanypropersystemofinspecting.
ISSUE&ARGUMENTS
W/Nplaintiffwasguiltyofcontributorynegligencetoexoneratedefendantfrom
liability.
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
No.
Theallegationthatplaintiffwasatfaultforcontinuinghisworkdespitenoticeofthe
saggingofthetrackconstitutedcontributorynegligencethatexoneratedefendantis
untenable.Nothingintheevidenceshowsthatplaintiffdidorcouldseethedisplaced
timberunderneath.Plaintiffhadworkedonthejobforlessthantwodays.
Whereplaintiffcontributedtotheprincipaloccurrence,asoneofthedeterminingfactors,
hecannotrecover.Where,inconjunctionwiththeoccurrence,hecontributesonlytohis
owninjury,hemayrecovertheamountthatthedefendantresponsiblefortheevent
shouldpayforsuchinjury,lessthesumdeemedasuitableequivalentforhisown
imprudence
TAYLOR
No.Theimmediatecauseoftheexplosion,theaccidentwhich
resultedinplaintiff'sinjury,wasinhisownactinputtingamatchtothecontents
ofthecap,andthathaving"contributedtotheprincipaloccurrence,asoneofits
determiningfactors,hecannotrecover."
Inthecaseatbar,plaintiffatthetimeoftheaccidentwasawell
grownyouthof15,morematurebothmentallyandphysicallythantheaverage
boyofhisage;hehadbeentoseaasacabinboy;wasabletoearnP2.50adayasa
mechanicaldraftsmanthirtydaysaftertheinjurywasincurred;andtherecord
disclosesthroughoutthathewasexceptionallywellqualifiedtotakecareof
himself.Theevidenceofrecordleavesnoroomfordoubtthat,despitehisdenials
onthewitnessstand,hewellknewtheexplosivecharacterofthecapwithwhich
hewasamusinghimself.Theseriesofexperimentsmadebyhiminhisattemptto
produceanexplosion,asdescribedbythelittlegirlwhowaspresent,admitofno
otherexplanation.Hisattempttodischargethecapbytheuseofelectricity,
followedbyhiseffortstoexplodeitwithastoneorahammer,andthefinal
successofhisendeavorsbroughtaboutbytheapplicationofamatchtothe
contentsofthecaps,showclearlythatheknewwhathewasabout.Norcanthere
beanyreasonabledoubtthathehadreasontoanticipatethattheexplosionmight
bedangerous,inviewofthefactthatthelittlegirl,9yearsofage,whowaswithin
himatthetimewhenheputthematchtothecontentsofthecap,became
frightenedandranaway.
True,hemaynothaveknownandprobablydidnotknowtheprecise
natureoftheexplosionwhichmightbeexpectedfromtheignitionofthecontents
ofthecap,andofcoursehedidnotanticipatetheresultantinjurieswhichhe
incurred;buthewellknewthatamoreorlessdangerousexplosionmightbe
expectedfromhisact,andyethewillfully,recklessly,andknowinglyproduced
theexplosion.Itwouldbegoingfartosaythat"accordingtohismaturityand
capacity"heexercisedsuchand"careandcaution"asmightreasonablybe
requiredofhim,orthatdefendantoranyoneelseshouldbeheldcivillyresponsible
forinjuriesincurredbyhimundersuchcircumstances.
Thelawfixesnoarbitraryageatwhichaminorcanbesaidtohave
thenecessarycapacitytounderstandandappreciatethenatureandconsequences
ofhisownacts,soastomakeitnegligenceonhisparttofailtoexerciseduecare
andprecautioninthecommissionofsuchacts;andindeeditwouldbe
impracticableandperhapsimpossiblesotodo,forintheverynatureofthings
thequestionofnegligencenecessarilydependsontheabilityoftheminortounderstand
thecharacterofhisownactsandtheirconsequences;andtheageatwhichaminorcanbe
saidtohavesuchabilitywillnecessarilydependsofhisownactsandtheirconsequences;
andattheageatwhichaminorcanbesaidtohavesuchabilitywillnecessarilyvaryin
accordancewiththevaryingnatureoftheinfinitevarietyofactswhichmaybedoneby
him.
Estacionvs.Bernardo|AustriaMartinez
G.R.No.144723,February27,2006|483SCRA222
FACTS
October16,1982,afternoon,RespondentNoewasgoinghometo
DumaguetefromCebu.HeboardedaFordFierajeepneydrivenbyGeminiano
Quinquillera(Quinquillera)andownedbyCeciliaBandoquillo(Bandoquillo).
Hewasseatedontheextensionseatatthecenterofthefiera.
FromSanJose,anoldwomanwantedtoridesoNoeofferedhisseat
and
hung/stoodontheleftrearcarrierofthevehicle(sumabit)
Thefierasloweddownandstoppedtopickupmorepassengers.
Suddenly,anIsuzucargotruckownedbypetitionerEstacionand
drivenby
Gerosano,whichwastravellinginthesamedirection,hittherearportionofthe
jeepney.
ThefieracrushedNoeslegsandfeet,hewasbroughttoSiliman
UnivMedCenter
wherehislowerleftlegwasamputated.
Policereportshowedthattherewere10morewhowereinjuredby
theaccident.
Feb18,1993,NowandhisguardianadlitemArlieBernardofiledw
theRTCof
Dumagueteacomplaintfordamagesarisingfromquasidelictagainstpetitioneras
ownerofthetruckandhisdriver.
RTCruledthatGerosanowasnegligentanditwasthedirectand
proximatecauseof
theincident.Italsoheldpetitionerliableasemployer.
CAaffirmedintototheRTC.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NPetitionerisliable?
W/NNoewasguiltyofcontributorynegligence?
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
YES.
Fromthewaythetruckreactedtotheapplicationofthebrakes,itcan
beshownthatGerosanowasdrivingatafastspeedbecausethebrakesskiddeda
lengthy48feetasshowninhesketchofthepolice.
Therewasalsoonlyonetiremarkwhichmeantthatthebrakesofthe
truckwerenotalignedproperly,otherwise,therewouldhavebeen2tiremarks.
Itisthenegligentactofpetitionersdriverofdrivingthecargotruck
atafastspeedcoupledwithfaultybrakeswhichwastheproximatecauseof
respondentNoesinjury.
AsemployerofGerosano,petitionerisprimarilyandsolidarilyliable
forthequasidelictcommittedbytheformer.Heispresumedtobenegligentin
theselectionofhisemployeewhichpetitionerfailedtoovercome.
HefailedtoshowthatheexamineddriverGerosanoastohis
qualifications,experienceandrecords.
YES.NOEISGUILTYOFCONTRIBUTORYNEGLIGENCEBYSTANDING
ATTHEREARPORTIONOFTHEJEEP.
ContributoryNegligenceisconductonthepartoftheinjuredparty,
contributingas
alegalcausetotheharmhehassuffered,whichfallsbelowthestandardtowhich
he
isrequiredtoconformforhisownprotection.
Noesactofstandingontheleftrearportionshowedhislackof
ordinarycareand
foresightthatsuchactcouldcausehimharmorputhislifeindanger.
Toholdapersonashavingcontributedtohisinjuries,itmustbe
shownthatheperformedanactthatbroughtabouthisinjuriesindisregardof
warningorsignsof
animpendingdangertohealthandbody.
Quinquillera(jeepneydriver)wasalsonegligentbecausetherewas
overloading
whichisinviolationoftrafficrulesandregulations.HealsoallowedNoetostand
ontheleftrearofhisjeep.
Thereisalsoapresumptionofnegligenceonthepartoftheownerof
thejeep,Bandoquillo,whichshedidnotrebut.
2080ratiodistributionofdamages.
Cadientevs.Macas|QuisumbingG.R.No.161946,November14,2008|
FACTS
AttheintersectionofBuhanginandSanVicenteStreets,respondent
BithuelMacas,a15yearoldhighschoolstudent,wasstandingontheshoulderof
theroad.
HewasbumpedandranoverbyaFordFiera,drivenbyChona
Cimafranca.CimafrancathenrushedMacastotheDavaoMedicalCenter.
Mathassufferedseveremuscularandmajorvesselinjuriesinboth
thighsandotherpartsofhislegs.Inordertosavehislife,thesurgeonhadto
amputatebothlegsuptothegroins.
Cimafrancahadsinceabscondedanddisappeared.However,records
showedthattheFordFierawasregisteredinthenameofAtty.Medardo
Cadiente.
Cadienteclaimedthatwhentheaccidenthappened,hewasnolonger
theownerofthesaidFordFiera.HeallegedlysoldittoEngr.Jalipa.
Macasfatherfiledacomplaintfortortsanddamagesagainst
CimafrancaandCadiente.
TrialcourtruledinfavorofMacas.AffirmedbytheCA.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NtherewascontributorynegligenceonthepartofMacas?HOLDING&
RATIODECIDENDI
NO.
Theunderlyingpreceptoncontributorynegligenceisthataplaintiff
whoispartlyresponsibleforhisowninjuryshouldnotbeentitledtorecover
damagesinfull,butmustproportionatelybeartheconsequencesofhisown
negligence.Thedefendantisthusheldliableonlyforthedamagesactuallycaused
byhisnegligence.
Inthiscase,whentheaccidenthappened,Macaswasstandingon
theshoulder,whichwastheuncementedportionofthehighway.Theshoulder
wasintendedforpedestrianuse.Onlystationaryvehicles,suchasthoseloading
orunloadingpassengersmayusetheshoulder.Runningvehiclesarenotsupposed
topassthroughthesaiduncementedportionofthehighway.
However,theFordFierainthiscase,withoutsomuchasslowing
down,tookofffromthecementedpartofthehighway,inexplicablyswervedto
theshoulder,andrecklesslybumpedandranoveraninnocentvictim.Macas
wasjustwhereheshouldbewhentheunfortunateeventtranspired.
CADIENTESTILLLIABLE.
SincetheFordFierawasstillregisteredinthepetitionersnameatthetimethe
misfortunetookplace,Cadientecannotescapeliabilityforthepermanentinjuryitcaused
therespondent.
NPCvHeirsofCasionan
GR165969,November272008
FACTS
AtrailleadingtoSangilo,Itogon,existedinDalicnoandthistrail
wasregularlyusedbymembersofthecommunity.Sometimeinthe1970s,
petitionerNPCinstalledhightensionelectricaltransmissionlinesof69
kilovolts(KV)traversingthetrail.
o Eventually,someofthetransmissionlinessaggedanddangledreducingtheir
distancefromthegroundtoonlyabouteighttotenfeet.Thisposedagreatthreat
topassersbywhowereexposedtothedangerofelectrocutionespeciallyduringthe
wetseason.
Asearlyas1991,theleadersofAmpucao,Itogonmadeverbaland
writtenrequestsforNPCtoinstitutesafetymeasurestoprotectusersofthe
trailfromtheirhightensionwires.OnJune18,1991andFebruary11,1993,
PabloandPedroNgaosie,eldersofthecommunity,wroteEngr.PaternoBanayot,
AreaManagerofNPC,tomakeimmediateandappropriaterepairsofthehigh
tensionwires.
OnJune27,1995,Nobleandhiscopocketminer,MelchorJimenez,
wereatDalicno.Theycuttwobamboopolesfortheirpocketmining.Onewas18
to19feetlongandtheotherwas14feetlong.Eachmancarriedonepole
horizontallyonhisshoulder
AsNoblewasgoinguphillandturningleftonacurve,thetipofthe
bamboopolehewascarryingtouchedoneofthedanglinghightensionwires.
o Melchor,whowaswalkingbehindhim,narratedthatheheardabuzzingsound
whenthetipofNoblespoletouchedthewireforonlyaboutoneortwoseconds.
Thereafter,hesawNoblefalltotheground.MelchorrushedtoNobleandshook
himbutthelatterwasalreadydead.TheircoworkersheardMelchorsshoutfor
helpandtogethertheybroughtthebodyofNobletotheircamp.
Consequently,theheirsofthedeceasedNoblefiledaclaimfordamagesagainstthe
NPCbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)inBenguet.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
Wastherecontributorynegligenceonthepartofthevictim?
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
Yes
violationoftherequireddistanceof18to20feet.Ifthetransmissionlineswere
properlymaintainedbypetitioner,thebamboopolecarriedbyNoblewouldnot
havetouchedthewires.Hewouldnothavebeenelectrocuted.
Negligenceisthefailuretoobserve,fortheprotectionoftheinterestofanotherperson,
thatdegreeofcare,precaution,andvigilancewhichthecircumstancesjustlydemand,
wherebysuchotherpersonsuffersinjury.Ontheotherhand,contributorynegligenceis
conductonthepartoftheinjuredparty,contributingasalegalcausetotheharm
hehassuffered,whichfallsbelowthestandardwhichheisrequiredtoconformfor
hisownprotection.
o Theunderlyingpreceptoncontributorynegligenceisthataplaintiffwhoispartly
responsibleforhisowninjuryshouldnotbeentitledtorecoverdamagesinfullbutmust
beartheconsequencesofhisownnegligence.15Ifindeedtherewascontributory
negligenceonthepartofthevictim,thenitispropertoreducetheawardfordamages.
Inthiscase,thetrailwhereNoblewaselectrocutedwasregularlyusedbymembersofthe
community.Therewerenowarningsignstoinformpassersbyoftheimpending
dangertotheirlivesshouldtheyaccidentallytouchthehightensionwires.Also,the
trailwastheonlyviablewayfromDalicontoItogon.Hence,Nobleshouldnotbe
faultedforsimplydoingwhatwasordinaryroutinetootherworkersinthearea.
Afialdav.Hisole|Reyes
No.L2075November29,1949|85Phil.67
FACTS
SpousesHisolehiredLoretoAfialdaascaretakeroftheformers
carabaosatafixedcompensation.
WhileLoretowastendingthecarabaos,hewasgoredbyoneofthem
anddiedasaresult.Loretoseldersister,MargaritaAfialda,nowsuesspouses
HisoleasLoretosdependantandheir.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NthespousesHisoleareliableforthedeathoftheircaretaker,Loreto
Afialda.
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
NO,THEYARENOTLIABLE.
Theanimalwasinthecustodyandunderthecontrolofthecaretaker,whowaspaidfor
hisworkassuch.Obviously,itwasthecaretakersbusinesstotrytopreventtheanimal
fromcausinginjuryordamagetoanyone,includinghimself.Andbeinginjuredbythe
animalunderthosecircumstanceswasoneoftherisksoftheoccupationwhichhehad
voluntarilyassumedandforwhichhemusttaketheconsequences.
Ongvs.MetropolitanWaterDistrict|BautistaAngeloL7644August29,1958|
FACTS
Metropolitanowns3swimmingpoolsatitsfiltersinBalara,Quezon
Itchargesthepublicacertainfeeifsuchwantedtouseitspools
City
DominadorOng,14yearsofage,sonofpetitioners,wenttothe
poolsalongwith
his2brothers
Hestayedintheshallowpool,butthenhetoldhisbrothersthathe
wouldget
somethingtodrink.HisbrotherslefthimandwenttotheDeeppool
Around4pmthatday,abatherreportedthatonepersonwas
swimmingtolong
underwater
Uponhearingthis,thelifeguardondutydoveintothepoolto
retrieveOngslifeless
body.Applyingfirstaid,thelifeguardtriedtorevivetheboy.
Soonafter,malenurseArmandoRulecametorenderassistance,
followedby
sanitaryinspectorIluminadoVicentewho,afterbeingcalledbyphonefromthe
clinicbyoneofthesecurityguards,boardedajeepcarryingwithhimthe
resuscitatorandamedicinekit,anduponarrivingheinjectedtheboywith
camphoratedoil.Aftertheinjection,VicenteleftonajeepinordertofetchDr.
AyuyaofromtheUniversityofthePhilippines.Meanwhile,Abaocontinuedthe
artificialmanualrespiration,andwhenthisfailedtorevivehim,theyappliedthe
resuscitatoruntilthetwooxygentankswereexhausted
Investigationwasconcludedandthecauseofdeathisasphyxiaby
submersioninwater(pagkalunod)
TheparentsofOngbringthisactionfordamagesagainst
Metropolitan,allegingnegligenceontheselectionandsupervisionofits
employeesandifnotnegligent,theyhadthelastclearchancetoreviveOng.
ItistobenotedthatMetropolitanhadcompletesafetymeasuresin
place:theyhadamalenurse,sixlifeguards,ringbuoys,toyroof,towingline,
savingkitandaresuscitator.Thereisalsoasanitaryinspectorwhoisinchargeof
aclinicestablishedforthebenefitofthepatrons.Defendanthasalsoondisplayin
aconspicuousplacecertainrulesandregulationsgoverningtheuseofthepools,
oneofwhichprohibitstheswimminginthepoolaloneorwithoutanyattendant.
Althoughdefendantdoesnotmaintainafulltimephysicianintheswimmingpool
compound,ithashoweveranurseandasanitaryinspectorreadytoadminister
injectionsoroperatetheoxygenresuscitatoriftheneedshouldarise
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NMetropolitanisliabletotheOngsforitsnegligence
W/Nthelastclearchancedoctrinemaybeinvokedinthiscase
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
No.Metropolitanisnotnegligent
Metropolitanhastakenallnecessaryprecautionstoavoiddangertothelivesofits
patrons.Ithasbeenshownthattheswimmingpoolsofappelleeareprovidedwitharing
buoy,toyroof,towingline,oxygenresuscitatorandafirstaidmedicinekit.Thebottom
ofthepoolsispaintedwithblackcolorssoastoinsureclearvisibility.Thereison
displayinaconspicuousplacewithintheareacertainrulesandregulationsgoverningthe
useofthepools.Appelleeemployssixlifeguardswhoarealltrainedastheyhadtakena
courseforthatpurposeandwereissuedcertificatesofproficiency.Theselifeguardswork
onschedulepreparedbytheirchiefandarrangedinsuchawayastohavetwoguardsata
timeondutytolookafterthesafetyofthebathers.Thereisamalenurseandasanitary
inspectorwithaclinicprovidedwithoxygenresuscitator.Andtherearesecurityguards
whoareavailablealwaysincaseofemergency.
TherecordalsoshowsthatwhenthebodyofminorOngwasretrievedfromthebottom
ofthepool,theemployeesofappelleedideverythingpossibletobringhimbacktolife.
Whentheyfoundthatthepulseoftheboywasabnormal,theinspectorimmediately
injectedhimwithcamphoratedoil.Whenthemanualartificialrespirationproved
ineffectivetheyappliedtheoxygenresuscitatoruntilitscontentswereexhausted.And
whilealltheseeffortswerebeingmade,theysentforDr.AyuyaofromtheUniversityof
thePhilippineswhohowevercamelatebecauseuponexaminingthebodyfoundhimto
bealreadydead.Alloftheforegoingshowsthatappelleehasdonewhatishumanly
possibleunderthecircumstancestorestorelifetominorOngandforthatreasonitis
unfairtoholditliableforhisdeath
TheLastClearChanceDoctrineisinapplicableinthiscase
TherecorddoesnotshowhowminorOngcameintothebig
swimmingpool.TheonlythingtherecorddisclosesisthatminorOnginformed
hiselderbrothersthathewasgoingtothelockerroomtodrinkabottleofcokebut
thatfromthattimeonnobodyknewwhathappenedtohimuntilhislifelessbody
wasretrieved.Thedoctrineoflastclearchancesimplymeansthatthenegligence
ofaclaimantdoesnotprecludearecoveryforthenegligenceofdefendantwhereit
appearsthatthelatter,byexercisingreasonablecareandprudence,mighthave
avoidedinjuriousconsequencestoclaimantnotwithstandinghisnegligence
SinceitisnotknownhowminorOngcameintothebigswimming
poolanditbeingapparentthathewenttherewithoutanycompanioninviolation
ofoneoftheregulationsofappelleeasregardstheuseofthepools,andit
appearingthatlifeguardAbaorespondedtothecallforhelpassoonashis
attentionwascalledtoitandimmediatelyafterretrievingthebodyalleffortsatthe
disposalofappelleehadbeenputintoplayinordertobringhimbacktolife,itis
clearthatthereisnoroomfortheapplicationofthedoctrinenowinvokedby
appellantstoimputeliabilitytoappellee.
Anuran,etal.vs.Buno,et.Al.|Bengzon
G.R.Nos.L21353andL21354,May20,1966|17SCRA224
FACTS
AtnoonofJanuary12,1958,apassengerjeepneyownedby
defendantspousesPedroGaholandLuisaAlcantaraanddrivenbydefendant
PepitoBunowasonitsregularroutetravellingformMahabangLudlud,Taal,
Batangastowardsthepoblacionofthesaidmunicipality.Aftercrossingthebridge,
Bunostoppedthejeepneytoallowoneofthepassengerstoalight.Heparkedhis
jeepneyinsuchawaythatonehalfofitswidth(theleftwheels)wasonthe
asphaltedpavementoftheroadandtheotherhalf,ontherightshoulderofthesaid
road.
Thereafteraspeedingwatertruck,ownedbydefendantspouses
AnselmoMaligayaandCeferinaArodrivenbyGuillermoRazon,violently
smashedagainsttheparkedjeepneyfrombehind,causingittoturnturtleintoa
nearbyditch.
Asaresultofthecollision,threeofthejeepneyspassengersdied
withtwootherssufferinginjuries.
Thesuitwasinstitutedbytherepresentativesofthedeadandofthe
injured,torecoverdamagesfromtheownersanddriversofboththetruckandthe
jeepney.
TheBatangasCFIrenderedjudgmentabsolvingthedriverofthe
jeepneyandits
owners.OnappealtotheCA,theappellatecourtaffirmedtheexonerationofthe
jeepneydriverandofitsowners.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/Nthedriverandownersofthejeepneyshouldalsobemadeliable?W/N
theLastClearChanceprincipleisapplicable?
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
YES,THEJEEPNEYOWNERSANDDRIVERAREALSOLIABLE
TheobligationofthecarriertotransportitspassengerssafelyissuchthattheCivil
Coderequiresutmostdiligencefromthecarrierswhoarepresumedtohavebeenat
faultoftohaveactednegligently,unlesstheyprovethattheyhaveobserved
extraordinarydiligence.Thedriverofthejeepneywasatfaultfoparkingthevehicle
improperly.
NO,THELASTCLEARCHANCEPRINCIPLEISNOTAPPLICABLE
Theprincipleaboutthelastclearchancewouldcallforapplicationinasuitbetween
theownersanddriversofthetwocollidingvehicles.Itdoesnotarisewherea
passengerdemandsresponsibilityfromthecarriertoenforceitscontractual
obligations.Foritwouldbeinequitabletoexemptthenegligentdriver
ofthejeepneyanditsownersonthegroundthattheotherdriverwaslikewiseguiltyof
negligence.
GlanPeoplesLumberandHardwarevsNLRC|NARVASAG.R.No.70493May18,
1989|
FACTS
EngineerOrlandoCalibo,AgripinoRoranesandMaximoPatoswere
onthejeepownedbytheBacnotanConsolidatedIndustriesInc.
CalibowasdrivingthecarastheywereapproachingtheLizada
BridgetowardsthedirectiongoingtoDavaoCity.
Ataboutthattime,PaulZacariaswasdrivingatruckloadedwith
cargo.Thetruckjustcrossedthesaidbridgecomingfromtheoppositedirectionof
DavaoCityandboundforGlan,SouthCotabato.
Atabout59yardsaftercrossingthebridge,thejeepandthetruck
collidedandasaconsequenceofwhichCalibodiedwhileRoranesandPatos
sustainedphysicalinjuries.Zacariaswasunhurt.
AcivilsuitwasfiledbythewifeofCaliboagainstZacariasandthe
ownerofthetruck
Atthelowercourt,thecasewasdismissedfortheplaintifffailedto
establishthenegligencebypreponderanceofevidence.Thecourthighlightedthat
momentsbeforethecollision,thejeepwaszigzagging.
Zacariasimmediatelysubmittedhimselftopoliceinvestigationwhile
RoranesandPatosrefusedtobeinvestigated.Zacariaspresentedmorecredible
testimonyunlikeRoranesandPatos.
Theevidenceshowedthatthepathofthetruckhadskidmarkswhich
indicatedthatthedriverappliedbrakes.Thecourtacceptedtheevidencethateven
iftherewasnegligenceonthepartofZacariaswhointrudedabout25centimeters
tothelaneofCalibo,thelatterstillhadthelastclearchancetoavoidtheaccident.
TheCourtofAppealsreversedthedecisionandruledinfavorofthe
plaintiff.ThswasonthegroundsthatZacariassawthejeepalreadyatabout150
metersandZacariasdidnothaveadriverslicenseatthetimeoftheincident.The
AppellateCourtopinedthatZacariasnegligencegaverisetothepresumptionof
negligenceonthepartofhisemployerandtheirliabilityisbothprimaryand
solidary.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
WhetherZacariasshouldhaveanactionableresponsibilityfortheaccidentunder
theruleoflastclearchance.
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
No.
TheevidenceindicatesthatitwasratherEngineerCalibosnegligencethatwasthe
proximatecauseoftheaccident.Assumingtherewasanantecedentnegligenceon
thepartofZacarias,thephysicalfactswouldstillabsolvehimofanyactionable
responsibilityundertheruleofthelastclearchance.
Fromtheestablishedfacts,thelogicalconclusionemergesthatthedriverofthejeephas
theclearchancetoavoidtheaccident.
Therespondentshaveadmittedthatthetruckwasalreadyatafullstopwhenthejeep
plowedintoit.Andtheyhavenotseenfittodenyorimpugnpetitionersimputationthat
theyalsoadmittedthetruckhadbeenbroughttoastopwhilethejeepwasstill30meters
away.Fromthesefactsthelogicalconclusionemergesthatthedriverofthejeephad
whatjudicialdoctrinehasappropriatelycalledthelastclearchancetoavoidthe
accident.Whilestillatthatdistanceofthirtymetersfromthetruck,bystoppinginhis
turnorswervinghisjeepawayfromthetruck,eitherofwhichthedriverofthejeephad
sufficienttimetodowhilerunningat30kilometersperhour.
Inthosecircumstances,hisdutywastoseizethatopportunityofavoidance,notmerely
relyonasupposedrighttoexpect,astheappellatecourtwouldhaveit,thetruckto
swerveandleavehiminaclearpath.
Thedoctrineofthelastclearchanceprovidesasavalidandcompletedefensetoaccident
liabilitytodayasitdidwheninvokedandappliedinthe1918caseofPicartvsSmith.
PantrancoNorthExpress,IncvsBaesa|CortesG.R.Nos.7905051|November14,
1989
FACTS
ThespousesBaesa,theirfourchildren,theIcospouses,thelatters
sonand7otherpeopleboardedapassengerjeeptogotoapicnicinIsabela,to
celebratethe5thweddinganniversaryoftheBaesaspouses.Thejeepwasdriven
byDavidIco.
Uponreachingthehighway,thejeepturnedrightandproceededto
MalalamRiverataspeedofabout20kph.Whiletheywereproceedingtowards
MalalamRiver,aspeedingPANTRANCObusfromAparri,onitsregularrouteto
Manila,encroachedonthejeepneyslanewhilenegotiatingacurve,andcollided
withit.
Asaresult,theentireBaesafamily,exceptforonedaughter,aswell
asDavidIco,died,andtherestsufferedfrominjuries.MaricarBaesa,the
survivingdaughter,throughherguardianfiledseparateactionsfordamages
arisingfromquasidelictagainstPANTRANCO.
PANTRANCO,asidefrompointingtothelateDavidIcos(the
driver)allegednegligenceasaproximatecauseoftheaccident,invokedthe
defenseofduediligenceintheselectionandsupervisionofitsdriver.TheRTC
ruledinfavorofBaesa,whichwasupheldbytheCA
ThepetitionernowcontendsthattheCAerredinnotapplyingthe
doctrineofthelastclearchanceagainstthejeepneydriver.Petitionercontends
thatunderthecircumstances,itwasthedriverofthejeepwhohadthelastclear
chancetoavoidthecollisionandwasthereforenegligentinfailingtoutilizewith
reasonablecareandcompetencehisthenexistingopportunitytoavoidtheharm.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
Doesthelastclearchancedoctrineapply?HOLDING&RATIO
DECIDENDI
No.
Thedoctrineappliesonlyinasituationwheretheplaintiffwasguilty
ofaprior
orantecedentnegligencebutthedefendant,whohadthelastfairchancetoavoid
theimpendingharmandfailedtodoso,ismadeliableforalltheconsequences
Generally,thelastclearchangedoctrineisinvokedforthepurpose
ofmakingadefendantliabletoaplaintiffwhowasguiltyofpriororantecedent
negligence,althoughitmayalsoberaisedasadefensetodefeatclaimfor
damages.
Itisthepetitionerspositionthatevenassumingarguendo,thatthe
busencroachedintothelaneofthejeepney,thedriverofthelattercouldhave
swervedthejeepneytowardsthespaciousdirtshoulderonhisrightwithoutdanger
tohimselforhispassengers.Thisisuntenable
Forthelastclearchancedoctrinetoapply,itisnecessarytoshowthatthepersonwho
allegedlyhasthelastopportunitytoaverttheaccidentwasawareoftheexistenceofthe
peril,orshould,withexerciseofduecare,havebeenawareofit.Onecannotbeexpected
toavoidanaccidentorinjuryifhedoesnotknoworcouldnothaveknowntheexistence
oftheperil.
Inthiscase,thereisnothingtoshowthatthejeepneydriverDavidIcoknewofthe
impendingdanger.Whenhesawatadistancethattheapproachingbuswasencroaching
onhislane,hedidnotimmediatelyswervethejeepneytothedirtshoulderonhisright
sincehemusthaveassumedthatthebusdriverwillreturnthebustoitsownlaneupon
seeingthejeepneyapproachingformtheoppositedirection.
Evenassumingthatthejeepneydriverperceivedthedangerafewsecondsbeforethe
actualcollision,hehadnoopportunitytoavoidit.TheCourthasheldthatthelastclear
chancedoctrinecanneverapplywherethepartychargedisrequiredtoact
instantaneously,andiftheinjurycannotbeavoidedbytheapplicationofallmeansat
handaftertheperilisorshouldhavebeendiscovered.
GeorgeMckeeandAraceliKohMckeevs.IAC,JaimeTayagandRosalinda
manalo|Davide
G.R.No.L68102,July16,1992|211SCRA517
FACTS
Between9and10o'clockinthemorningofJanuary1977,inPulong
PuloBridgealongMacArthurHighway,betweenAngelesCityandSanFernando,
Pampanga,aheadoncollisiontookplacebetweenanInternationalcargotruck,
Loadstar,ownedbyTayagandManalo,drivenbyGalang,andaFordEscortcar
drivenbyJoseKoh,resultinginthedeathsofJoseKoh,KimKohMcKeeand
LoidaBondoc,andphysicalinjuriestoGeorgeKohMcKee,ChristopherKoh
McKeeandAraceliKohMcKee,allpassengersoftheFordEscort
Immediatelybeforethecollision,thecargotruck,whichwasloaded
with200cavansofriceweighingabout10,000kilos,wastravelingsouthward
fromAngelesCitytoSanFernandoPampanga,andwasboundforManila.The
FordEscort,ontheotherhand,wasonitswaytoAngelesCityfromSanFernando
WhentheFordEscortwasabout10metersawayfromthesouthern
approachofthebridge,2boyssuddenlydartedfromtherightsideoftheroad
andintothelaneofthecarmovingbackandforth,unsureofwhethertocrossall
thewaytotheothersideorturnback
JoseKohblewthehornofthecar,swervedtotheleftandenteredthe
laneofthetruck;hethenswitchedontheheadlightsofthecar,appliedthebrakes
andthereafterattemptedtoreturntohislane.Butbeforehecoulddoso,hiscar
collidedwiththetruck.Thecollisionoccurredinthelaneofthetruck,whichwas
theoppositelane,onthesaidbridge
Asaresultoftheaccident,2civilcaseswerefiledfordamagesfor
thedeathandphysicalinjuriessustainedbythevictimsboardingtheFordEscort;
aswellasacriminalcaseagainstGalang
Duringthetrial,evidencewerepresentedshowingthatthedriverof
theTruckwasspeedingresultingintheskidmarksitcausedinthesceneofthe
accident
ThelowercourtfoundGalangguiltyinthecriminalcase,butthe
civilcasesweredismissed
Onappeal,theCAaffirmedtheconvictionofGalang,andreversed
thedecisioninthecivilcases,orderingthepaymentofdamagesforthedeathand
physicalinjuriesoftheMcKeefamily
OnMR,theCAreverseditspreviousdecisionandruledinfavorof
theownersofthetruck
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NtheowneranddriveroftheTruckwereresponsibleforthecollision
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
THEPROXIMATECAUSEOFTHECOLLISIONWASTHEOVERSPEEDING
OFTHETRUCKSHOWINGITSNEGLIGENCE
Thetestofnegligenceandthefactsobtaininginthiscase,itismanifestthatno
negligencecouldbeimputedtoJoseKoh.Anyreasonableandordinaryprudentman
wouldhavetriedtoavoidrunningoverthetwoboysbyswervingthecarawayfrom
wheretheywereevenifthiswouldmeanenteringtheoppositelane.Avoidingsuch
immediateperilwouldbethenaturalcoursetotakeparticularlywherethevehicleinthe
oppositelanewouldbeseveralmetersawayandcouldverywellslowdown,movetothe
sideoftheroadandgivewaytotheoncomingcar.Moreover,underwhatisknownasthe
emergencyrule,"onewhosuddenlyfindshimselfinaplaceofdanger,andisrequiredto
actwithouttimetoconsiderthebestmeansthatmaybeadoptedtoavoidtheimpending
danger,isnotguiltyofnegligence,ifhefailstoadoptwhatsubsequentlyandupon
reflectionmayappeartohavebeenabettermethod,unlesstheemergencyinwhichhe
findshimselfisbroughtaboutbyhisownnegligence"
Consideringthesuddenintrusionofthe2boysintothelaneofthecar,theCourtfinds
thatJoseKohadoptedthebestmeanspossibleinthegivensituationtoavoidhitting
them.Applyingtheabovetest,therefore,itisclearthathewasnotguiltyofnegligence
Inanycase,assuming,arguendothatJoseKohisnegligent,itcannot
besaidthathisnegligencewastheproximatecauseofthecollision.Galang's
negligenceisapparentintherecords.Hehimselfsaidthathistruckwasrunningat
30miles(48kilometers)perhouralongthebridgewhilethemaximumspeed
allowedbylawonabridgeisonly30kilometersperhour.UnderArticle2185of
theCivilCode,apersondrivingavehicleispresumednegligentifatthetimeof
themishap,hewasviolatinganytrafficregulation
EvenifJoseKohwasindeednegligent,thedoctrineoflastclear
chancefindsapplicationhere.Lastclearchanceisadoctrineinthelawoftorts
whichstatesthatthecontributorynegligenceofthepartyinjuredwillnotdefeat
theclaimfordamagesifitisshownthatthedefendantmight,bytheexerciseof
reasonablecareandprudence,haveavoidedtheconsequencesofthenegligence
oftheinjuredparty.Insuchcases,thepersonwhohadthelastclearchanceto
avoidthemishapisconsideredinlawsolelyresponsiblefortheconsequences
thereof
Applyingtheforegoingdoctrine,itisnotdifficulttorulethatitwas
thetruckdriver'snegligenceinfailingtoexertordinarycaretoavoidthecollision
whichwas,inlaw,theproximatecauseofthecollision.Asemployersofthetruck
driver,TayagandManaloare,underArticle2180oftheCivilCode,directlyand
primarilyliablefortheresultingdamages.Thepresumptionthattheyarenegligent
flowsfromthenegligenceoftheiremployee.Thatpresumption,however,isonly
juristantum,notjurisetdejure.Theironlypossibledefenseisthattheyexercised
allthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilytopreventthedamage,whichthey
failedtodo
LBCAirInc,etalvCA,etal|Vitug,J.G.R.No.101683February23,1995
FACTS
Atabout11:30inthemorningof15November1987.Rogelio
Monterola,alicenseddriver,wastravelingonboardhisSuzukimotorcycle
towardsMangagoyontherightlanealongadustynationalroadinBislig,Surigao
delSur.
Ataboutthesametime,acargovanoftheLBCAirCargo
Incorporated,drivenbydefendantJaimeTano,Jr.,wascomingfromtheopposite
directiononitswaytotheBisligAirport.OnboardwerepassengersFernandoYu,
ManagerofLBCAirCargo,andhissonwhowasseatedbesideTano.
WhenTano(driver)wasapproachingthevicinityoftheairportroad
entranceonhisleft,hesawtwovehiclesracingagainsteachotherfromthe
oppositedirection.Tanostoppedhisvehicleandwaitedforthetworacingvehicles
topassby.Thestirredcloudofdustmadevisibilityextremelybad.
Insteadofwaitingforthedusttosettle,Tanostartedtomakeasharp
leftturntowardstheairportroad.Whenhewasabouttoreachthecenterofthe
rightlane,themotorcycledrivenbyMonterolasuddenlyemergedfromthedust
andsmashedheadonagainsttherightsideoftheLBCvan.Monteroladiedfrom
thesevereinjurieshesustained.
Acriminalcasefor"homicidethrurecklessimprudence"wasfiled
againstTano.Acivilsuitwaslikewiseinstitutedbytheheirsofdeceased
MonterolaagainstTano,alongwithFernandoYuandLBCAirCargo
Incorporated,fortherecoveryofdamages.Thetwocasesweretriedjointlybythe
RegionalTrialCourt
RTCdismissedbothcasesonthegroundthattheproximatecauseof
the"accident"wasthenegligenceofdeceasedRogelioMonterola.
CAReversed,hencethispetitionforreview
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NTanosallegednegligencewastheproximatecauseoftheaccident
o <Tano(driver)>DeceasedMonterolawascontributorynegligent,heevenhadthe
lastclearchancetoevadethecollision
o <HeirsofMonterola>ProximatecausewasnegligenceofTanowhenhedidnotwaitfor
thedusttosettle
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
YES,Tanosnegligenceistheproximatecauseoftheaccident.
Fromeveryindication,theproximatecauseoftheaccidentwasthenegligenceofTano
who,despiteextremelypoorvisibility4,hastilyexecutedaleftturn(towardstheBislig
airportroadentrance)withoutfirstwaitingforthedusttosettle.Itwasthisnegligentact
ofTano,whichhadplacedhisvehicle(LBCvan)directlyonthepathofthemotorcycle
comingfromtheoppositedirection,thatalmostinstantaneouslycausedthecollisionto
occur.Simpleprudencerequiredhimnottoattempttocrosstheotherlaneuntilafterit
wouldhavebeensafefromandclearofanyoncomingvehicle.
Petitionerspoorlyinvokethedoctrineof"lastclearchance"(alsoreferredto,attimes,
as"superveningnegligence"oras"discoveredperil").Thedoctrine,inessence,istothe
effectthatwherebothpartiesarenegligent,butthenegligentactofoneisappreciably
laterintimethanthatoftheother,orwhenitisimpossibletodeterminewhosefaultor
negligenceshouldbeattributedtotheincident,theonewhohadthelastclearopportunity
toavoidtheimpendingharmandfailedtodosoischargeablewiththeconsequences
thereof(seePicartvs.Smith,37Phil.809).Stateddifferently,therulewouldalsomean
thatanantecedentnegligenceofapersondoesnotprecludetherecoveryofdamagesfor
superveningnegligenceof,orbaradefenseagainsttheliabilitysoughtby,anotherifthe
latter,whohadthelastfairchance,couldhaveavoidedtheimpendingharmbythe
exerciseofduediligence(PantrancoNorthExpress,Inc.vs.Baesa,179SCRA384;Glan
People'sLumberandHardwarevs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,173SCRA464).
Inthecaseatbench,thevictimwastravelingalongthelanewherehewasrightly
supposedtobe.Theincidentoccurredinaninstant.Noappreciabletimehadelapsed,
fromthemomentTanoswervedtohislefttotheactualimpact;thatcouldhaveafforded
thevictimalastclearopportunitytoavoidthecollision.
Itistruehowever,thatthedeceasedwasnotallthatfreefromnegligenceinevidently
speedingtoocloselybehindthevehiclehewasfollowing.We,therefore,agreewiththe
appellatecourtthatthereindeedwascontributorynegligenceonthevictim'spartthat
couldwarrantamitigationofpetitionersliabilityfordamages.
Canlasvs.CourtofAppeals|PurisimaG.R.No.112160,February28,2000|
FACTS
PetitionerErlindaRamos,afterseekingprofessionalmedicalhelp,
wasadvisedtoundergoanoperationfortheremovalofastoneinhergallbladder.
ShewasreferredtoDr.Hosaka,asurgeon,whoagreedtoperformtheoperation
onher.Theoperationwasscheduledforat9:00inthemorningatprivate
respondentDeLosSantosMedicalCenter(DLSMC).Sinceneitherpetitioner
Erlindanorherhusband,petitionerRogelio,knewofanyanesthesiologist,Dr.
HosakarecommendedtothemtheservicesofDr.Gutierrez.
PetitionerErlindawasadmittedtotheDLSMCthedaybeforethe
scheduledoperation.By7:30inthemorningofthefollowingday,petitioner
Erlindawasalreadybeingpreparedforoperation.Upontherequestofpetitioner
Erlinda,hersisterinlaw,Cruz,whowasthenDeanoftheCollegeofNursingat
theCapitolMedicalCenter,wasallowedtoaccompanyherinsidetheoperating
room.
By10:00inthemorning,whenDr.Hosakawasstillnotaround,
petitionerRogelioalreadywantedtopullouthiswifefromtheoperatingroom.He
metDr.Garcia,whoremarkedthathewasalsotiredofwaitingforDr.Hosaka.
Dr.Hosakafinallyarrivedatthehospitalmorethanthree(3)hoursafterthe
scheduledoperation.Cruz,whowasthenstillinsidetheoperatingroom,heard
aboutDr.Hosakasarrival.WhilesheheldthehandofErlinda,CruzsawDr.
Gutierrezhavingahardtimeintubatingthepatient.Cruznoticedabluish
discolorationofErlindasnailbedsonherlefthand.She(Cruz)thenheardDr.
HosakainstructsomeonetocallDr.Calderon,anotheranesthesiologist.Whenhe
arrived,Dr.Calderonattemptedtointubatethepatient.Thenailbedsofthepatient
remainedbluish,thus,shewasplacedinatrendelenburgpositionaposition
wheretheheadofthepatientisplacedinapositionlowerthanherfeet.
Atalmost3:00intheafternoon,CruzsawErlindabeingwheeledto
theIntensiveCareUnit(ICU).ThedoctorsexplainedtopetitionerRogeliothathis
wifehadbronchospasm.ErlindastayedintheICUforamonth.Shewasreleased
fromthehospitalonlyfourmonthslater.Sincethen,Erlindaremainedincomatose
conditionuntilshediedin1999
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
liable
W/NDr.Gutierrez(anesthesiologist)isnegligentandhence
W/NDr.HosakaisliableundertheCaptainoftheShip
Doctrine?
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
DR.GUTIERREZNEGLIGENT.DRHOSAKALIABLEFORTHEACTS
OFHISTEAM.
Dr.Gutierrezclaimoflackofnegligenceonherpartisbeliedbytherecordsofthe
case.Ithasbeensufficientlyestablishedthatshefailedtoexercisethestandardsof
careintheadministrationofanesthesiaonapatient.Theconductofa
preanesthetic/preoperativeevaluationpriortoanoperation,whetherelectiveor
emergency,cannotbedispensedwith.Suchevaluationisnecessaryfortheformulationof
aplanofanesthesiacaresuitedtotheneedsofthepatientconcerned.
Nonetheless,Dr.Gutierrezomittedtoperformathoroughpreoperativeevaluationon
Erlinda.Assheherselfadmitted,shesawErlindaforthefirsttimeonthedayofthe
operationitself,onehourbeforethescheduledoperation.Sheauscultatedthepatients
heartandlungsandcheckedthelattersbloodpressuretodetermineifErlindawasindeed
fitforoperation.However,shedidnotproceedtoexaminethepatientsairway.Hadshe
beenabletocheckpetitionerErlindasairwaypriortotheoperation,Dr.Gutierrezwould
mostprobablynothaveexperienceddifficultyinintubatingtheformer,andthusthe
resultantinjurycouldhavebeenavoided.
Forhispart,Dr.HosakamainlycontendsthattheCourterredinfindinghimnegligentas
asurgeonbyapplyingtheCaptainoftheShipdoctrine.Dr.Hosakaarguesthatthetrend
inUnitedStatesjurisprudencehasbeentorejectsaiddoctrineinlightofthe
developmentsinmedicalpractice.Hepointsoutthatanesthesiologyandsurgeryaretwo
distinctandspecializedfieldsinmedicineandasasurgeon,heisnotdeemedtohave
controlovertheactsofDr.Gutierrez.Asanesthesiologist,Dr.Gutierrezisaspecialistin
herfieldandhasacquiredskillsandknowledgeinthecourseofhertrainingwhichDr.
Hosaka,asasurgeon,doesnotpossess.
ThatthereisatrendinAmericanjurisprudencetodoawaywiththeCaptainoftheShip
doctrinedoesnotmeanthatthisCourtwillipsofactofollowsaidtrend.Dueregardfor
thepeculiarfactualcircumstancesobtaininginthiscasejustifytheapplicationofthe
CaptainoftheShipdoctrine.FromthefactsonrecorditcanbelogicallyinferredthatDr.
Hosakaexercisedacertaindegreeof,attheveryleast,supervisionovertheprocedure
thenbeingperformedonErlinda.
First,itwasDr.HosakawhorecommendedtopetitionerstheservicesofDr.Gutierrez.In
effect,herepresentedtopetitionersthatDr.Gutierrezpossessedthenecessary
competenceandskills.Drs.HosakaandGutierrezhadworkedtogethersince1977.
Second,Dr.HosakahimselfadmittedthathewastheattendingphysicianofErlinda.
Thus,whenErlindashowedsignsofcyanosis,itwasDr.Hosakawhogaveinstructionsto
callforanotheranesthesiologistandcardiologisttohelpresuscitateErlinda.Third,itis
concededthatinperformingtheirresponsibilitiestothepatient,Drs.Hosakaand
Gutierrezworkedasateam.Theirworkcannotbeplacedinseparatewatertight
compartmentsbecausetheirdutiesintersectwitheachother.
Ferrervs.Ericta|Kapunan
G.R.No.129329,July31,2001|362SCRA56
FACTS
Mr.andMrs.FrancisPfleiderweretheownersoroperatorsofaFord
pickupcar.Atabout5:00o'clockintheafternoonofDecember31,1970,their
son,defendantDennisPfleider,whowasthenonlysixteen(16)yearsofage,
withoutproperofficialauthority,drovetheforpickup,withoutdueregardto
trafficrulesandregulations,andwithouttakingthenecessaryprecautionto
preventinjurytopersonsordamagetoproperty.Thepickupcarwasoverturned,
causingphysicalinjuriestoplaintiffAnnetteFerrer,whowasthenapassenger
therein,whichinjuriesparalyzedherandrequiredmedicaltreatmentand
confinementatdifferenthospitalsformorethantwo(2)years;thatasaresultof
thephysicalinjuriessustainedbyAnnette,shesufferedunimaginablephysical
pain,mentalanguish,andherparentsalsosufferedmentalanguish,moralshock
andspentaconsiderablesumofmoneyforhertreatment.
ThecomplaintwasonlyfiledonJanuary5,1975.
AtthepretrialonMay12,1975,onlyFerrerandcounselwere
present.Assuchthe
Pfleidersweredeclaredindefaultandthecourtrenderedjudgmentagainstthem.
Uponfilingamotionforreconsideration,respondentjudge,without
settingasidetheorderofdefault,issuedanorderabsolvingdefendantsfromany
liabilityonthegroundsthat:(a)thecomplaintstatesnocauseofactionbecauseit
doesnotallegethatDennisPfleiderwaslivingwithhisparentsatthetimeofthe
vehicularaccident,consideringthatunderArticle2180oftheCivilCode,the
fatherand,incaseofhisdeathorincapacitythemother,areonlyresponsiblefor
thedamagescausedbytheirminorchildrenwholiveintheircompany;and(b)
thatthedefenseofprescriptionismeritorious,sincethecomplaintwasfiledmore
thanfour(4)yearsafterthedateoftheaccident,andtheactiontorecoverdamages
basedonquasidelictprescribesin
four(4)years.Hence,theinstantpetitionformandamus.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/Nthedefenseofprescriptionhadbeendeemedwaivedbyprivaterespondents'
failuretoallegethesameintheiranswer.
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
NO.DEFENSEOFPRESCRIPTIONNOTDEEMEDWAIVED.
Wheretheanswerdoesnottakeissuewiththecomplaintastodates
involvedinthedefendant'sclaimofprescription,hisfailuretospecificallyplead
prescriptionintheanswerdoesnotconstituteawaiverofthedefenseof
prescription.Thedefenseofprescription,evenifnotraisedinamotiontodismiss
orintheanswer,isnotdeemedwaivedunlesssuchdefenseraisesissuesoffact
notappearinguponthe
precedingpleading
Itistruethatthedefenseofprescriptioncanonlybeconsideredifthe
sameis
invokedassuchintheanswerofthedefendantandthatinthisparticularinstance
nosuchdefensewasinvokedbecausethedefendantshadbeendeclaredindefault,but
suchruledoesnotobtainwhentheevidenceshowsthatthecauseofactionuponwhich
plaintiff'scomplaintisbasedisalreadybarredbythestatuteoflimitations
Inthepresentcase,thereisnoissueoffactinvolvedinconnectionwiththequestionof
prescription.Actionsfordamagesarisingfromphysicalinjuriesbecauseofatortmustbe
filedwithinfouryears.8Thefouryearperiodbeginsfromthedaythequasidelictis
committedorthedateoftheaccident
Kramer,Jr.vs.CA|Gancayco,J.:
G.R.No.83524,October13,1989|178SCRA518
FACTS
OnApril8,1976,F/BMarjolea,afishingboatownedbypetitioners
ErnestKramer,Jr.andMartaKramerwasnavigatingitswayfromMarinduqueto
Manila.
SomewhereneartheMaricabonIslandandCapeSantiago,theboat
figuredinacollisionwithaninterislandvessel(M/VAsiaPhilippines)ownedby
TransAsiaShippingLines,Inc.
Duetothecollision,F/BMarjoleasank,takingalongitsfishcatch.
ThecaptainsofbothvesselsfiledaprotestwiththeBoardofMarine
InquiryofthePhilippineCoastGuardforthepurposeofdeterminingthe
proximatecuaseofthemaritime
collision
OnOctober19,1981,theBoardconcludedthatthecollisionwasdue
tothenegligenceoftheemployeesofprivaterespondent(TransAsia).
Onthebasisofsuchdecision,thePhilippineCoastGuard,onApril
29,1982,suspendedM/VAsiaPhilippinesfrompursuinghisprofessionasa
marineofficer.
OnMay30,1985,petitionersfiledacomplaintfordamagesinthe
RTC,PasayCity.
PrivaterespondentfiledaMTDonthegroundofprescriptionbased
onArt.1146oftheCivilCodewhichprovides,Anactionbaseduponquasidelict
mustbeinstitutedwithin4yearsfromthedaythequasidelcitwascommitted.
TheRTCdeniedtheMTDonthebasisoftheBoardsresolutionthat
therewasaneedtorelyonhighlytechnicalaspectsattendanttosuchcollision,
hence,theprescriptiveperiodunderthelawshouldbegintorunonlyfromApril
29,1982,thedatewhenthenegligenceofthecrewofM/VAsiaPhilippineshad
beenfinallyascertained.
OnappealtotheCA,thesaidcourtreversedtheRTCsdecisionand
grantedtheMTD,hencethepresentpetitionforcertiorariandprohibition.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/Nacomplaintfordamagesinstitutedbythepetitionersagainsttheprivate
respondentarisingfromamarinecollisionisbarredbythestatuteoflimitations
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
YES.
Therightofactionaccrueswhenthereexistsacauseofaction,whichconsistsof3
elements,namely:
o Arightinfavoroftheplaintiffbywhatevermeansandunderwhateverlawitarisesor
iscreated
o Anobligationonthepartofdefendanttorespectsuchright
o Anactoromissiononthepartofsuchdefendantviolativeoftheright
oftheplaintiff
Theoccurrenceofthelastelementisthetimewhenthecauseofactionarise
Aggrievedpartyneednotwaitforadeterminationbyanadministrativebodythatthe
collisionwascausedbyfaultornegligenceoftheotherpartybeforehecanfileactionfor
damages
GotescoInvestmentCorporationvs.Chatto|DavideG.R.No.87584,June16,1992|
210SCRA18
FACTS
GloriaE.Chattoandher15yearolddaughterLinawenttoseethe
movieMotherDearatSuperamaItheater,ownedbyGotescoInvestment
Corporation.Theyboughtbalconyticketsbuteventhenwereunabletofindseats
consideringthenumberofpeoplepatronizingthemovie.Hardly10minutesafter
enteringthetheater,theceilingofthebalconycollapsedandpandemonium
ensued.
TheChattosmanagedtocrawlunderthefallenceilingandwalkto
thenearbyFEUhospitalwheretheywereconfinedandtreatedforaday.Later,
theyhadtotransfertoUSThospital,andbecauseofcontinuingpainintheneck,
headache,anddizziness,hadtoevengotoIllinois,USAfortreatment.
Gotescotriedtoavoidliabilitybyallegingthatthecollapsewasdue
toforcemajeure.Itmaintainedthatitstheaterdidnotsufferfromanystructuralor
constructiondefect.Thetrialcourtawardedactual/compensatoryandmoral
damagesandattorneysfeesinfavoroftheChattos.TheCAalsofoundGotescos
appealtobewithoutmerit.Hencethispetition.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/Nthecauseofthecollapseofthebalconyceilingwasforcemajeure
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
COLLAPSEOFTHEBALCONYCEILINGNOTDUETOFORCEMAJEURE.
GOTESCOLIABLE.
Gotescosclaimthatthecollapseoftheceilingofthetheaterwasdue
toforcemajeureisnotevenfoundedonfactsbecauseitsownwitness,Mr.Ong,
admittedthathecouldnotgiveanyreasonforthecollapse.Havinginterposeditas
adefense,ithadtheburdentoprovethatthecollapsewasindeedcausedbyforce
majeure.Itcouldnothavecollapsedwithoutacause.ThatMr.Ongcouldnotoffer
anyexplanationdoesnotimplyforcemajeure.
SpanishandAmericanauthoritiesonthemeaningofforcemajeure:
Inevitableaccidentorcasualty;anaccidentproducedbyanyphysicalcausewhich
isirresistible;suchaslightning,tempest,perilsofthesea,inundation,or
earthquake;thesuddenillnessordeathofaperson.[Blackstone]
Theeventwhichwecouldneitherforeseenorresist;as,forexample,thelightning
stroke,hail,inundation,hurricane,publicenemy,attackbyrobbers;[Esriche]
Anyaccidentduetonaturalcauses,directly,exclusively,withouthuman
intervention,suchascouldnothavebeenpreventedbyanykindofoversight,
pains,andcarereasonablytohavebeenexpected.[Bouvier]
Gotescocouldhaveeasilydiscoveredthecauseofthecollapseifindeeditweredueto
forcemajeure.TherealreasonwhyMr.Ongcouldnotexplainthecauseisbecauseeither
hedidnotactuallyconductaninvestigationorbecauseheisincompetent(notan
engineer,butanarchitectwhohadnotevenpassedthegovernmentsexamination).
Thebuildingwasconstructedbarely4yearspriortotheaccident.Itwasnotshownthat
anyofthecausesdenominatedasforcemajeureobtainedimmediatelybeforeoratthe
timeofthecollapseoftheceiling.Suchdefectscouldhavebeendiscoveredifonly
Gotescoexercisedduediligenceandcareinkeepingandmaintainingthepremises.But,
asdisclosedbyMr.Ong,noadequateinspectionofthepremisesbeforethedateofthe
accident.
ThatthestructuraldesignsandplansofthebuildingweredulyapprovedbytheCity
Engineerandthebuildingpermitsandcertificateofoccupancywereissueddonotatall
provethattherewerenodefectsintheconstruction,especiallyasregardstheceiling,
consideringthatnotestimonywasofferedtoprovethatitwaseverinspectedatall.
Andevenassumingarguendothatthecauseofthecollapsewasduetoforcemajeure,
Gotescowouldstillbeliablebecausethetrialcourtdeclaredittobeguiltyofgross
negligence.AsgleanedfromBouviersdefinition,foronetobeexemptfromanyliability
becauseofit,hemusthaveexercisedcare,i.e.,heshouldnothavebeenguiltyof
negligence.
Gatchalianvs.Delim|
G.R.No.L56487October21,1991|203SCRA126
FACTS
ReynaldaGatchalianboardedThamesminibusownedbyDelim.
ThebuswasheadedforBauang,LaUnion.Ontheway,whilethebuswasrunning
alongthehighwayinBarrioPayocpoc,Bauang,Union,"asnappingsound"was
suddenlyheardatonepartofthebusand,shortlythereafter,thevehiclebumpeda
cementflowerpotonthesideoftheroad,wentofftheroad,turnedturtleandfell
intoaditch.
Severalpassengers,includingGatchalian,wereinjured.Theywere
promptlytakentoBethanyHospitalatSanFernando,LaUnion,formedical
treatment.Uponmedicalexamination,petitionerwasfoundtohavesustained
physicalinjuriesontheleg,armandforehead.
Mrs.Delimpaidforallthehospitalexpenses.Shealsoaskedthe
passengerstosignadocument[JointAffidavit]stating,Thatwearenolonger
interestedtofileacomplaint,criminalorcivilagainstthesaiddriverandownerof
thesaidThames,becauseitwasanaccidentandthesaiddriverandownerofthe
saidThameshavegonetotheextentofhelpingustobetreateduponourinjuries.
EvenifGatchaliansignedthisdocument,shestillfiledthiscase.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NthedocumentDelimhadGatchaliansignatthehospitalconstitutesavalid
waiver.
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
NO.THEDOCUMENTWASNOTAVALIDWAIVER.
Awaiver,tobevalidandeffective,mustinthefirstplacebecouched
inclearandunequivocaltermswhichleavenodoubtastotheintentionofaperson
togiveuparightorbenefitwhichlegallypertainstohim.Awaivermaynot
casuallybeattributedtoapersonwhenthetermsthatdonotexplicitlyandclearly
evidenceanintenttoabandonarightvestedinsuchperson.
ThecircumstancesunderwhichtheJointAffidavitwassignedby
Gatchalianneedtobeconsidered.Gatchalianwasstillreelingfromtheeffectsof
thevehicularaccident,havingbeeninthehospitalforonlythreedays,whenthe
purportedwaiverintheformoftheJointAffidavitwaspresentedtoherfor
signing,whilereadingthedocument,sheexperienceddizzinessbutsincetheother
passengerswhohadalsosufferedinjuriessignedthedocument,shetoosigned
withoutbotheringtoreadtheJointAffidavitinitsentirety.Consideringthese
circumstancesthereappearssubstantialdoubtwhetherGatchalianunderstoodfully
theimportoftheJointAffidavit(preparedbyDelim)shesignedandwhethershe
actuallyintendedtherebytowaiveanyrightofaction.
Moreover,forawaivertobevlaid,itmustnotbecontrarytolaw,
pubicpolicy,moralsandgoodcustoms.Inthiscase,Delimwastheownerofthe
minibuswhich
takespassengersaroundLaUnion.Shehasacontractofcarriagewiththemandis
requiredtoexerciseextraordinarydiligencewhenfulfillingthesecontractualduties.To
upholdasupposedwaiverofanyrighttoclaimdamagesbyaninjuredpassenger,under
circumstanceslikethoseexhibitedinthiscase,wouldbetodiluteandweakenthe
standardofextraordinarydiligenceexactedbythelawfromcommoncarriersandhence
torenderthatstandardunenforceable.Thewaiverisoffensivetopulicpolicy.