Torts and Damages Case Digest: Engada v. CA (2003)

G.R. No. 140698  June 20, 2003
Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance, emergency rule (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: Section 41, paragraph (a) of R.A. 4136

FACTS:

• November 29, 1989 1:30 pm: Edwin Iran was driving a blue Toyota Tamaraw jeepney with the owner Sheila Seyan as passnger.
• The speeding Isuzu pick-up truck driven by Rogelio Engada came from the opposing direction and swerved to its left encroaching upon the lane of the Tamaraw.  In attempt to avoid the pick-up, Seyan shouted at Iran to swerve to the left but the Engada also swerved to its right hitting the Tamaraw at its right front passenger side causing its head and chassis to separate from its body.
• Seyan was thrown out of the Tamaraw and landed on a ricefield. Seyan and Iran were brought to Barotac Nuevo Medicare Hospital.  Seyan suffered a fracture on the right femur, lacerated wound on the right foot, multiple contusions, abrasions, blunt abdominal injury, and lacerations of the upper-lower pole of the right kidney.  Upon discharge, she Seyan incurred P130,000 in medical expenses. The Toyota Tamaraw jeepney ended up in the junk heap totalling a loss of P80,000 
• MTC: Engada guilty of damage to property through reckless imprudence with serious physical injuries
• CA: Affirmed MTC
• Engada appealed alleging that CA failed to consider that he already relayed his intention to go back to his lane by flashing the pick-up’s right signal light. He submits that at that moment Iran, the driver of the Tamaraw, had no more reason to swerve to his left 

ISSUE: W/N under the doctrine of last clear chance Iran should be liable.

HELD: NO. CA affirmed.

• Engada's negligence was the proximate cause of the collision
• in abandoning his lane, he did not see to it first that the opposite lane was free of oncoming traffic and was available for a safe passage
• after seeing the Tamaraw jeepney ahead, he did not slow down
• emergency rule
• 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 - Iran cannot be faulted
• at a distance of 30 meters from it and driving the Isuzu pick-up at a fast speed as it approached the Tamaraw, denied Iran time and opportunity to ponder the situation at all. There was no clear chance to speak of.

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Canlas v. CA (2000)

G.R. No. 112160 February 28, 2000

Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable: Article 1173

FACTS:

• August, 1982: Osmundo S. Canlas executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing Vicente Mañosca to mortgage 2 parcels of land situated in BF Homes Paranaque in the name of his wife Angelina Canlas.  
• Subsequently, Osmundo Canlas agreed to sell the lands to Mañosca for P850K, P500K payable within 1 week, and the balance serves as his investment in the business.  Mañosca issued 2 checks P40K and P460K.  The P460K lacked sufficient funds. 
• September 3, 1982: Mañosca mortgage to Atty. Manuel Magno the parcels of lands for P100K with the help of impostors who misrepresented themselves as the Spouses Canlas.
• September 29, 1982: Mañosca was granted a loan by the respondent Asian Savings Bank (ASB) for P500K with the parcels of land as security and with the help of the same impostors.  The loan was left unpaid resulting in a extrajudicially foreclosure on the lots.
• January 15, 1983: Canlas wrote a letter informing ASB that the mortgage was without their authority.  He also requested the sheriff Contreras to hold or cancel the auction.  Both parties refused.
• The spouses Canlas filed a case for annulment of deed of real estate mortgage with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
• RTC: restrained the sheriff from issuing a Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale and annulled the mortgage
• CA: reversed holding Canlas estopped for coming to the bank with Mañosca and letting himself be introduced as Leonardo Rey

ISSUE: W/N the ASB had was negligent due to the doctrine of last clear chance

HELD: YES. Petition is GRANTED

• Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consist in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply
• The degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family
• not even a single identification card was exhibited by the said impostors to show their true identity
• acted simply on the basis of the residence certificates bearing signatures which tended to match the signatures affixed on a previous deed of mortgage to Atty. Magno
• previous deed of mortgage did not bear the tax account number of the spouses as well as the Community Tax Certificate of Angelina Canlas 
• doctrine of last clear chance 
• 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
• 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
• Antecedent Negligence: Osmundo Canlas was negligent in giving Vicente Mañosca the opportunity to perpetrate the fraud, by entrusting him the owner's copy of the transfer certificates of title of subject parcels of land
• Supervening Negligence: Failing to perform the simple expedient of faithfully complying with the requirements for banks to ascertain the identity of the persons transacting with them - ASB bears the loss
• Canlas went to ASB with Mañosca and he was introduced as Leonardo Rey.  He didn't correct Mañosca.  However, he did not know that the lots were being used as a security for he was there to make sure that Mañosca pays his debt so he cannot be estopped from assailing the validity of the mortgage 
• But being negligent in believing the misrepresentation by Mañosca that he had other lots and that the lot were not to be used as a security, Canlas was negligent and undeserving of Attorney's fees.
• the contract of mortgage sued upon was entered into and signed by impostors who misrepresented themselves as the spouses Osmundo Canlas and Angelina Canlas = complete nullity

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Philippine Bank of Commerce v. CA (1997)

G.R. No. 97626   March 14, 1997
Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)


FACTS:

• May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976: 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 Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC)
• They were not credited to RMC's account but were instead deposited to Account No. 53-01734-7 of Yabut's husband, Bienvenido Cotas
• Romeo Lipana  never checked their monthly statements of account reposing complete trust and confidence on PBC
• Irene Yabut's modus operandi was to furnish 2 copies of deposit slip upon and both are always validated and stamped by the teller Azucena Mabayad :
• original showed the name of her husband as depositor and his current account number - retained by the bank
• duplicate copy was written the account number of her husband but the name of the account holder was left blank
• 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 to RMC's account number
• This went on in a span of more than 1 year without private respondent's knowledge
• Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, RMC demanded from PBC the return of its money and later on filed in the RTC
• RTC: PBC and Azucena Mabayad jointly and severally liable
• CA: affirmed with modification deleting awards of exemplary damages and attorney's fees 

ISSUE: 

1. W/N applying the last clear chance, PBC's teller is negligent for failing to avoid the injury by not exercising the proper validation procedure-YES

2. W/N there was contirbutory negligence by RMC - YES

HELD: 60-40 ratio. only the balance of 60% needs to be paid by the PBC

1. YES.

• The fact that the duplicate slip was not compulsorily required by the bank in accepting deposits should not relieve the PBC of responsibility
• The odd circumstance alone that such duplicate copy lacked one vital information (Name of the account holder) should have already put Ms. Mabayad on guard. 
• Negligence here lies not only on the part of Ms. Mabayad but also on the part of the bank itself in its lack in selection and supervision of Ms. Mabayad. 
• Mr. Romeo Bonifacio, then Manager of the Pasig Branch of the petitioner bank and now its Vice-President, to the effect that, while he ordered the investigation of the incident, he never came to know that blank deposit slips were validated in total disregard of the bank's validation procedures until 7 years later
• last clear chance/supervening negligence/discovered peril
• 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
• 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 RMC was negligent in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, yet it cannot be denied that PBC 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.
• Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
  If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.  In the case of banks, however, the degree of diligence required is more than that of a good father of a family. Considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors, banks are duty bound to treat the accounts of their clients with the highest degree of care

2. YES.

• it cannot be denied that, indeed, 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
• Article 2179 of the New Civil Code

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

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Bustamante v. CA (1991)

G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991

Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

• April 20, 1983 6:30 am: a collision occurred between a 1947 model gravel and sand truck driven by Montesiano and owned by Del Pilar and a Mazda passenger bus driven Susulin along the national road at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite
• front left side portion (barandilla) of the body of the truck sideswiped the left side wall of the passenger bus, ripping off the wall from the driver's seat to the last rear seat 
• several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died as a result of the injuries they sustained:
• 1. Rogelio Bustamante, 40, husband of Emma Adriano Bustamante and father of Rossel, Gloria, Yolanda, Ericson, and Ederic, all surnamed Bustamante;
  2. Maria Corazon Jocson, 16, daughter of spouses Salvador and Patria Jocson;
  3. Jolet C. Ramos, 16, daughter of spouses Jose and Enriqueta Ramos;
  4. Enrico Himaya, 18, son of spouses Narciso and Adoracion Himaya; and
  5. Noel Bersamina, 17, son of spouses Jose and Ma. Commemoracion Bersamina
• The bus was registered in the name of Novelo but was owned and/or operated as a passenger bus jointly by Magtibay and Serrado
• before the collision, the cargo truck and the passenger bus were approaching each other, coming from the opposite directions of the highway. While the truck was still about 30 meters away, Susulin, the bus driver, saw the front wheels of the vehicle wiggling. He also observed that the truck was heading towards his lane. Not minding this circumstance due to his belief that the driver of the truck was merely joking, Susulin shifted from fourth to third 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 or pass a Kubota hand tractor being pushed by a person along the shoulder of the highway
• RTC: liability of the two drivers for their negligence must be solidary
• CA: owner and driver of the sand and gravel truck appealed was granted

ISSUE: W/N the last clear chance can apply making the bus negligent in failing to avoid the collision and his act in proceeding to overtake the hand tractor was the proximate cause of the collision making him solely liable

HELD: NO. Petition is granted. CA reversed.

• 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. 
• since the case at bar is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles the court erred in absolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck from liability

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Maricar Baesa (1989)

G.R. 79050-51    November 14, 1989
Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

• Spouses Baesa, their 4 children, the Ico spouses and their son and 7 other people boarded a passenger jeep driven by David Ico to go to a picnic in Isabela, to celebrate the 5th wedding anniversary of the Baesa spouses
• While they were proceeding towards Malalam River at a speed of about 20 kph, a speeding PANTRANCO bus from Aparri, on a route  to Manila, encroached on the jeepney’s lane while negotiating a curve, and collided with it.
• As a result, the entire Baesa family, except for their daughter Maricar Baesa, as well as David Ico, died, and the rest suffered from injuries. Maricar Baesa, through her guardian filed separate actions for damages arising from quasi-delict against PANTRANCO. 
• PANTRANCO: alleged David Ico's negligence as a proximate cause of the accident and invoked the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its driver.
• CA upheld RTC: favor of Baesa

ISSUE: W/N the last clear chance applies thereby making David Ico who had the chance to avoid the collision negligent in failing to utilize with reasonable care and competence 

HELD: NO.

• Generally, the last clear change doctrine is invoked for the purpose of making a defendant liable to a plaintiff who was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence, although it may also be raised as a defense to defeat claim for damages
• For the last clear chance doctrine to apply, it is necessary to show that the person who allegedly has 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
• 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 form the opposite direction
• Even assuming that the jeepney driver perceived the danger a few seconds before the actual collision, he had no opportunity to avoid it
• 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

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Anuran v. Buno (1966)

G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354           May 20, 1966

Lessons Applicable:  Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

• January 12, 1958 noon: passenger jeepney owned by Pedro Gahol and Luisa Alcantara and driven by Pepito Buño overloaded with (14-16 passengers) was parked on the road to Taal, Batangas when a speeding motor truck owned by Anselmo Maligaya and Ceferina Aro driven by Guillermo Razon negligently bumped it from behind, with such violence that three passengers died and two others suffered injuries that required their confinement at the Provincial Hospital for many days
• Jeepney was parked to let a passanger alight in such a way that 1/2 of its width (the left wheels) was on the asphalted pavement of the road and the other half, on the right shoulder of the road 
• suits were instituted by the representatives of the dead and of the injured, to recover consequently damages against the driver and the owners of the truck and also against the driver and the owners of the jeepney
• CFI: absolving the driver of the jeepney and its owners, but it required the truck driver and the owners to make compensation
• CA: Affirmed exoneration of the jeepney

ISSUE: W/N the doctrine of last clear chance can apply so that truck driver guilty of greater negligence which was the efficient cause of the collision will be solely liable

HELD: NO. The three defendants last mentioned are required to pay solidarily with the other defendants-respondents the amounts fixed by the appealed decision.

• 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)
• principle about the "last clear chance" would call for application 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 inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence