Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53000:gr-175172-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:10:34+00:00

Document:
CRESENCIA ACHEVARA, ALFREDO ACHEVARA, and BENIGNO VALDEZ, Petitioners, v. ELVIRA RAMOS, JOHN ARNEL RAMOS, and KHRISTINE CAMILLE RAMOS, Respondents.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 of the Decision dated April 25, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67027, and its Resolution dated October 23, 2006, denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilocos Sur, Branch 22, dated February 14, 2000, holding petitioners solidarily liable to respondents for damages incurred due to a vehicular accident, which resulted in the death of Arnulfo Ramos.
On June 27, 1995, respondents Elvira Ramos and her two minor children, namely, John Arnel Ramos and Khristine Camille Ramos, filed with the RTC of Ilocos Sur a Complaint2 for damages under Article 21763 of the Civil Code against petitioners Cresencia Achevara, Alfredo Achevara and Benigno Valdez for the death of Arnulfo Ramos, husband of Elvira Ramos and father of her two children, in a vehicular accident that happened on April 22, 1995 at the national highway along Barangay Tablac, Candon, Ilocos Sur. Crescencia Achevara was sued as the operator of the passenger jeep with Plate No. DKK-995, which was involved in the vehicular accident. Alfredo Achevara was impleaded as the husband of the operator and as the administrator of the conjugal partnership properties of the Spouses Achevara.
In their Complaint,4 respondents alleged that in the morning of April 22, 1995, Benigno Valdez was driving a passenger jeep heading north on the national highway in Barangay Tablac, Candon, Ilocos Sur in a reckless, careless, and negligent manner. He tried to overtake a motorcycle, causing the passenger jeep to encroach on the opposite lane and bump the oncoming vehicle driven by Arnulfo Ramos. The injuries sustained by Arnulfo Ramos caused his death, notwithstanding prompt medical assistance. Respondents alleged that Crescencia Achevara failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of Benigno Valdez as driver of the passenger jeep. Respondents sought to recover actual damages for medical expenses in the sum of P33,513.00 and funeral expenses in the sum of P30,000.00, as well as moral and exemplary damages, lost earnings, attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
In their Answer,5 petitioners denied respondents' allegation that Benigno Valdez overtook a motorcycle and bumped the vehicle driven by Arnulfo Ramos. They alleged that on April 22, 1995, Benigno Valdez was driving southward at a moderate speed when he saw an owner-type jeep coming from the south and heading north, running in a zigzag manner, and encroaching on the west lane of the road. To avoid a collision, Valdez drove the passenger jeep towards the shoulder of the road, west of his lane, but the owner-type jeep continued to move toward the western lane and bumped the left side of the passenger jeep. Petitioners alleged that it was Arnulfo Ramos who was careless and negligent in driving a motor vehicle, which he very well knew had a mechanical defect. Hence, respondents had no cause of action against petitioners.
During trial on the merits, respondents presented three witnesses: Alfredo Gamera, Dr. Emilio Joven and Elvira Ramos.
Petitioners presented six witnesses, namely, PO3 Baltazar de Peralta, Special Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Marvin Valdez, Herminigildo Pagaduan, Benigno Valdez, Emilia Achevara and Alfredo Achevara.
PO3 Baltazar de Peralta stated that he was assigned to Santiago, Ilocos Sur. He testified that at about 9:00 a.m. of April 22, 1995, he was on board his motorcycle at the waiting shed erected on the eastern side of the national highway in Tablac, Ilocos Sur. He was about to go southward, but waited a while to let a southbound passenger jeep pass by. Then he followed behind the passenger jeep.
Alfredo Achevara declared that before they employed Benigno Valdez to drive the passenger jeep, the former exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting, training and supervising the latter.27 They required Valdez to show them his professional driver's license, and investigated his personal background and training/experience as a driver. For his apprenticeship, they required him to drive from Metro Manila to Tagaytay City, and then back to Metro Manila for a day.
On February 14, 2000, the RTC of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 22, rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. 1431-N in favor of respondents.
The trial court found that the testimony of respondents' witness, Alfredo Gamera, was controverted by the testimony of PO3 Baltazar de Peralta and the finding of police investigator SPO2 Marvin Valdez. Gamera testified that the vehicular accident occurred because the passenger jeep tried to overtake the motorcycle driven by PO3 Baltazar de Peralta and encroached on the lane of the owner-type jeep driven by Arnulfo Ramos. Gamera's testimony was, however, refuted by PO3 Baltazar de Peralta, who testified that the passenger jeep did not overtake his motorcycle since he was the one following behind the passenger jeep. Hence, the trial court concluded that the passenger jeep did not encroach on the lane of the owner-type jeep on the left side of the road to allegedly overtake the motorcycle.
Moreover, Gamera testified that the collision occurred on the lane of the owner-type jeep, and one of the wheels of the owner-type jeep was detached, so that it stayed immobile at the place of collision, about two meters east from the center line of the national highway. However, SPO2 Marvin Valdez, who investigated the incident, found both vehicles on the western lane of the national highway. Thus, the trial court stated that it was undeniable that the collision took place on the western lane of the national highway, which was the passenger jeep's lane.
The trial court held that, as contended by respondents, the doctrine of last clear chance was applicable to this case. It cited Picart v. Smith,29 which applied the said doctrine, thus, where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, 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.
The trial court stated that the doctrine of last clear chance, as applied to this case, implied a contributory negligence on the part of the late Arnulfo Ramos, who knew of the mechanical defect of his vehicle.
The Spouses Achevara and Benigno Valdez appealed the trial court's Decision to the Court of Appeals.
The motion for reconsideration of the Spouses Achevara and Benigno Valdez was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution34 dated October 23, 2006.
Hence, the Spouses Achevara and Benigno Valdez filed this petition.
The main issue is whether or not petitioners are liable to respondents for damages incurred as a result of the vehicular accident.
Petitioners contend that the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable to this case, because the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the late Arnulfo Ramos in knowingly driving the defective owner-type jeep. When the front wheel of the owner-type jeep was removed, the said jeep suddenly encroached on the western lane and bumped the left side of the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez. Considering that the interval between the time the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of Valdez to the time of impact was only a matter of seconds, Valdez no longer had the opportunity to avoid the collision. Pantranco North Express Inc. v. Besa35 held that the doctrine of last clear chance "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."
Petitioners assert that Arnulfo Ramos' negligence in driving the owner-type jeep âˆ’ despite knowledge of its mechanical defect, and his failure to have it repaired first before driving, to prevent damage to life and property âˆ’ did not only constitute contributory negligence. Ramos' negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the accident, which resulted in his untimely demise. Benigno Valdez should not be made to suffer the unlawful and negligent acts of Ramos. Since forseeability is the fundamental basis of negligence, Valdez could not have foreseen that an accident might happen due to the mechanical defect in the vehicle of Ramos. It was Ramos alone who fully knew and could foresee that an accident was likely to occur if he drove his defective jeep, which indeed happened. Hence, the proximate cause of the vehicular accident was the negligence of Ramos in driving a mechanically defective vehicle.
In short, petitioners contend that Arnulfo Ramos' own negligence in knowingly driving a mechanically defective vehicle was the immediate and proximate cause of his death, and that the doctrine of last clear chance does not apply to this case.
The Court notes that respondents' version of the vehicular accident was rebutted by petitioners. The testimony of respondents' witness, Alfredo Gamera, that the vehicular accident occurred because the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez tried to overtake the motorcycle driven by PO3 Baltazar de Peralta and encroached on the lane of the owner-type jeep, which resulted in the collision, was refuted by PO3 Baltazar de Peralta, who testified that the passenger jeep did not overtake his motorcycle since he was the one following behind the passenger jeep. Hence, the trial court correctly concluded that the passenger jeep did not encroach on the lane of the owner-type jeep on the left side of the road to allegedly overtake the motorcycle.
Gamera also testified that the collision took place on the lane of the owner-type jeep, and one of its wheels was detached and stayed immobile at the place of collision, about two meters east the center line of the national highway. However, SPO2 Marvin Valdez, who investigated the incident, found both vehicles on the western lane of the national highway. The owner-type jeep was diagonally positioned on the right, western lane; while the passenger jeep was on the western shoulder of the road, diagonally facing southwest. The trial court, therefore, correctly held that it was undeniable that the collision took place on the western lane of the national highway or the lane of the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez. It was the owner-type jeep driven by Arnulfo Ramos that encroached on the lane of the passenger jeep.
It must be pointed out that Herminigildo Pagaduan testified that in the early morning of April 22, 1995, he and Barangay Captain Gacusan, along with Arnulfo Ramos, aborted their trip to Tamorong, Candon, Ilocos Sur, using the same owner-type jeep because it was wiggling. Ramos was advised to have the mechanical defect repaired. Yet, later in the morning, Ramos was driving the owner-type jeep on the national highway in Candon. Benigno Valdez testified that the owner-type jeep was wiggling and running fast in a zigzag manner when its right front wheel got detached, and the owner-type jeep suddenly bumped the passenger jeep he was driving, hitting the left side of the passenger jeep opposite his seat. Although Valdez swerved the passenger jeep to the western edge of the road, it was still hit by the owner-type jeep.
Seeing that the owner-type jeep was wiggling and running fast in a zigzag manner as it travelled on the opposite side of the highway, Benigno Valdez was made aware of the danger ahead if he met the owner-type jeep on the road. Yet he failed to take precaution by immediately veering to the rightmost portion of the road or by stopping the passenger jeep at the right shoulder of the road and letting the owner-type jeep pass before proceeding southward; hence, the collision occurred. The Court of Appeals correctly held that Benigno Valdez was guilty of inexcusable negligence by neglecting to take such precaution, which a reasonable and prudent man would ordinarily have done under the circumstances and which proximately caused injury to another.
The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply to this case, because even if it can be said that it was Benigno Valdez who had the last chance to avoid the mishap when the owner-type jeep encroached on the western lane of the passenger jeep, Valdez no longer had the opportunity to avoid the collision. The Answer of petitioners stated that when the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of the passenger jeep, Benigno Valdez maneuvered his vehicle towards the western shoulder of the road to avoid a collision, but the owner-type jeep driven by Ramos continued to move to the western lane and bumped the left side of the passenger jeep. Thus, petitioners assert in their Petition that considering that the time the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of Valdez to the time of impact was only a matter of seconds, he no longer had the opportunity to avoid the collision. Although the records are bereft of evidence showing the exact distance between the two vehicles when the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of the passenger jeep, it must have been near enough, because the passenger jeep driven by Valdez was unable to avoid the collision. Hence, the doctrine of last clear chance does not apply to this case.
In this case, both Arnulfo Ramos and Benigno Valdez failed to exercise reasonable care and caution that an ordinarily prudent man would have taken to prevent the vehicular accident. Since the gross negligence of Arnulfo Ramos and the inexcusable negligence of Benigno Valdez were the proximate cause of the vehicular accident, respondents cannot recover damages pursuant to Article 2179 of the Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67027, dated April 25, 2006, and its Resolution dated October 23, 2006, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
2 Docketed as Civil Case No. 1431-N.
3 Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
6 TSN, March 22, 1996, pp. 2-5.
7 Id. at 2; TSN, July 19, 1996, p. 16.
8 TSN, July 19, 1996, pp. 2, 4-5, 8-9.
9 TSN, August 23, 1996, pp. 4-10.
10 Death Certificate, records, p. 140.
11 TSN, June 7, 1996, pp. 5-8.
12 Exhibit "M," records, p. 145.
13 TSN, June 7, 1996, p. 17.
14 TSN, June 20, 1997, pp. 2-6.
15 Id. at 3-4, 9, 10, 14.
18 TSN, July 28, 1997, pp. 2-3.
20 TSN, August 18, 1997, pp. 2-5.
23 TSN, September 5, 1997, pp. 2-6, 8; TSN, September 19, 1997, p. 20.
24 TSN, September 5, 1997, pp. 6-7.
25 TSN, September 5, 1997, pp. 9-10; TSN, September 19, 1997, p. 12.
26 TSN, April 16, 1999, pp. 2-4.
29 37 Phil. 809 (1918).
35 G.R. NOS. 79050-51, November 14, 1989, 179 SCRA 384.
36 Jarencio, Jarencio on Torts and Damages, p. 138.
37 National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Noble Casionan, G.R. No. 165969, November 27, 2008.
39 Pantranco v. North Express, Inc., G.R. NOS. 79050-51, November 14, 1989, 179 SCRA 384.
40 Id., citing Ong v. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil. 397 (1958).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 2176
 v. 
 v. 
 v.