!

" $%&'(

)%*%+,%- ." /(01-% 2 3451%

"#$%&'
! }uan Bataclan figuieu in an acciuent when the bus he was iiuing
(owneu by Neuina Tianspoitation, uiiven by Coniauo Saylon, opeiateu
by Naiiano Neuina) hau its fiont tiies buist, the bus zigzagging
ominously befoie plunging into a canal
! The bus tuineu tuitle but some passengeis manageu to escape
! Among those that weie left pinneu uown weie Bataclan (they weie
seateu neai the uiivei)
! Aftei about half an houi, some men caiiying lighteu toiches
appioacheu to help
! When they got close to the bus, a fieice fiie staiteu, killing the 4 left
people
! Saluu villanueva, the wiuow, fileu action to iecovei fiom Neuina
compensatoiy, moial, exemplaiy, atty's fees (87k)
! TC:
o bieach of contiact of caiiiage;
o negligence of uiivei Saylon - he was speeuing at time of
acciuent so when he applieu the biakes, the bus was catapulteu
1Sum befoie it fell
o PR0XINATE CA0SE: fiie that buineu the bus (thus, uamages
coiiesponu to physical injuiies)

(&&)*'
wn the caiiiei is liable anu to what uegiee (i.e. what is the pioximate cause of
Bataclan's ueath)

+*,-'
Befenuant caiiiei is liable since the pioximate cause of Bataclan's ueath was the
oveituining of the bus.
0iuinaiily when a passengei bus oveituins, anu pins uown a passengei,
injuiing him, if thiough some event, unexpecteu anu extiaoiuinaiy, the
oveituineu bus is set on fiie (e.g. lightning oi looteis), anu the passengei is
buineu to ueath, one might still contenu that the pioximate cause of his ueath
was the fiie anu not the oveituining of the vehicle.

+./01023 45 %6* 78*&*5% $#&*, when the vehicle tuineu tuitle, the leaking of
gasoline was not unnatuial oi unexpecteu. The coming of the men with the
toiches was but a natuial sequence of the oveituining of the bus. Buining can
also in pait be attiibuteu to the negligence of the caiiiei (thiu its uiivei anu its
conuuctoi who faileu to exeiciseu uiligence in cautioning the men with fiie as
the leak ieeks even fiom a uistance)

PR0XINATE CA0SE
shoit: that cause which, in natuial anu continuous sequence, unbioken
by any efficient inteivening cause, piouuces the injuiy, anu without
which the iesult woulu not have occuiieu

long: that acting fiist anu piouucing the injuiy, eithei immeuiately oi
by setting othei events in motion, all constituting a natuial anu
continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with
its immeuiate pieuecessoi, the final event in the chain immeuiately
effecting the injuiy as a natuial anu piobable iesult of the cause which
fiist acteu, unuei such ciicumstances that the peison iesponsible foi
the fiist event shoulu, as an oiuinaiy piuuent anu intelligent peison,
have ieasonable giounu to expect at the moment of his act oi uefault
that an injuiy to some peison might piobably iesult theiefiom.

0theis: eviuence to suppoit supposition that the tiies weie alieauy olu (Neuina
was oveiheaiu oiueiing bus inspectoi to change them since uiivei faileu to uo
so befoie acciuent)

/(5+&56 35&7 . )%81-7 2 9-*(51%

2uu7 Sanuoval-uutieiiez Petition foi ieview on ceitioiaii of CA uecision
anu iesolution
The cause > Biffeient categoiies > Pioximate
"#$%&'
Sebastian Baking went to Bi. Cesai Sy's clinic foi a meuical check-up. The
next uay, aftei unueigoing seveial tests, Bi. Sy founu that Baking's bloou
sugai anu tiiglyceiiue levels weie above noimal, so he gave him 2 meuical
piesciiptions94#:4$8;5 (bloou sugai) anu Benalize (tiiglyceiiue).
Baking went to Neicuiy Biug Alabang bianch to buy the meuicines.
Bowevei, the saleslauy misieau the piesciiption as 9;8:4$):, a potent
sleeping tablet, so that was what was solu to Baking. 0nawaie that he was
given the wiong meuicine, Baking took one Boimicum pill a uay foi S uays.
0n the Siu uay of taking the meuicine, Baking figuieu in a vehiculai
acciuent, as his cai colliueu with }osie Peialta's cai. Baking fell asleep while
uiiving, anu he coulu not iemembei anything about the collision noi felt its
impact. Suspecting that the tablet he took may have a beaiing on his state at
the time of the collision, he ietuineu to Bi. Sy, who was shockeu to finu that
what was solu to Baking was Boimicum.
Petitionei contenus that the pioximate cause of the acciuent was
iesponuent's negligence in uiiving his cai.
Baking fileu a complaint foi uamages against Neicuiy Biug. RTC ienueieu
its uecision in favoi of Baking. CA affiimeu RTC.
(&&)*&'
1. Whethei petitionei was negligent, anu if so, whethei such negligence was the
pioximate cause of iesponuent's acciuent; anu

2. Whethei the awaiu of moial uamages, attoiney's fees, litigation expenses, anu
cost of the suit is justifieu.
+*,-'
1. YES. NERC0RY BR0u ENPL0YEE uR0SSLY NEuLIuENT IN SELLINu
B0RNIC0N
To sustain a claim baseu on NCC 2176, the following iequisites must
concui:
a. Bamage suffeieu by plaintiff
b. Fault oi negligence of uefenuant
c. Connection of cause anu effect between A & B
The uiugstoie business is imbueu with public inteiest. The health anu
safety of the people will be put into jeopaiuy if uiugstoie employees
will not exeicise the highest uegiee of caie anu uiligence in selling
meuicines. The caie iequiieu must be commensuiate with the uangei
involveu, anu the skill employeu must coiiesponu with the supeiioi
knowleuge of the business which the law uemanus.
Consiueiing that a fatal mistake coulu be a mattei of life anu ueath foi a
buying patient, the employee shoulu have been veiy cautious in
uispensing meuicines. She shoulu have veiifieu W0N the meuicine she
gave was what was piesciibeu by Bi. Sy.
NERC0RY BR0u ALS0 LIABLE 0NBER NCC 218u
It faileu to piove that it exeiciseu the uue uiligence of a goou fathei of a
family in the selection anu supeivision of the employee.
<2.=(>?@0 A?BC0 ." @+0 ?AA(90D@ E D0FG(F0DA0 ." 92BFC@.20
0><G.H00

<8;I4:#%* $#)&* - any cause that piouuces injuiy in a natuial anu continuous
sequence, unbioken by any efficient inteivening cause, such that the iesult
woulu not have occuiieu otheiwise; ueteimineu fiom the facts of each case,
upon a combineu consiueiation of logic, common sense, policy anu pieceuent
vehiculai acciuent coulu not have occuiieu hau the uiugstoie employee been
caieful in ieauing the piesciiption; without the potent effects of Boimicum, a
sleeping tablet, it was unlikely that Baking woulu fall asleep while uiiving his
cai, iesulting in a collision.
2. Yes. Awaiu of uamages aie justifieu. AWARB - Suk moial uamages, 2Sk
exemplaiy uamages. Attoiney's fees anu costs of suit ueleteu.

:1,1;1-%' )%-8 ." $< = :%'+&%,

<(G(<(D?C J?DK LM A? #5- "G.20DA(. 20H0C
1994 Puno Petition foi ieview of a CA uecision
!"# %&'(# ) *+,,#-#./ %&/#01-+#( ) 2-13+4&/#

"?A@C'
! FL0RENCI0 REYES issueu two postuateu checks. These aie foi WINNER
INB0STRIAL C0RP. in amount of P21T uue 0ct.1u, 1979 anu foi vicente
T0I in amount of P11.4T uue 0ct.12.
! To covei the face value of the checks, he iequesteu PCIB Noney Shop's
managei to effect the withuiawal of PS2T fiom his savings account anu
have it uepositeu with his cuiient account with PILIPINAS BANK.
! PILIPINAS BANK'S Cuiient Account Bookkeepei maue an eiioi in
uepositing the amount: he thought it was foi a ceitain FL0RENCI0
ANAB0R. Be, thus, posteu the ueposit in the lattei's account not noticing
that the uepositoi's suiname in the ueposit slip was REYES.
! 0n 0ct.11, the 0ct.1u check in favoi of WINNER INB0STRIAL was
piesenteu foi payment. Since the leugei of Floiencio REYES inuicateu that
his account hau only a balance of P4,u78.4S, it was uishonoieu anu the
payee was auviseu to tiy it foi next cleaiing. It was ieuepositeu but was
again uishonoieu. The same thing happeneu to the 0ct.12 check.
! The payee then uemanueu a cash payment of the check's face value which
REYES uiu if only to save his name. Fuiious, Reyes immeuiately pioceeueu
to the bank anu uigeu an immeuiate veiification of his account. That was
only when they noticeu the eiioi. The PS2,uuu ueposit posteu in the
account of Floiencio Amauoi was immeuiately tiansfeiieu to the account
of Reyes upon being cleaieu by Floiencio Amauoi that he uiu not effect a
ueposit in that amount.
! RTC: oiueieu petitionei to pay P2uuT compensatoiy uamages, P1uuT
moial uamages, P2ST attoiney's fees, as well as costs of suit.
! CA: mouifieu amount to just PSuT moial uamages anuP2ST attoiney's fees
anu costs of suit.

(CCB0' W0N Ait.2179 of NCC is applicable to exempt Pilipinas Bank fiom
liability

+0G9' No. Pilipinas Bank was helu liable.
Foi Aiticle 2179 of the Civil Coue to apply, it must be establisheu that piivate
iesponuent's own negligence was the immeuiate anu pioximate cause of his
injuiy. The concept of pioximate cause is uefineu in oui coipus of
juiispiuuence as "any cause which, in natuial anu continuous sequence,
unbioken by any efficient inteivening cause, piouuces the iesult complaineu of
anu without which woulu not have occuiieu anu fiom which it ought to have
been foieseen oi ieasonably anticipateu by a peison of oiuinaiy case that the
injuiy complaineu of oi some similai injuiy, woulu iesult theiefiom as a
natuial anu piobable consequence."

In this case, the pioximate cause of the injuiy is the negligence of petitionei's
employee in eiioneously posting the cash ueposit of piivate iesponuent in the
name of anothei uepositoi who hau a similai fiist name. As helu by the tiial
couit: the bank employee is ueemeu to have faileu to exeicise the uegiee of
caie iequiieu in the peifoimance of his uuties. The bank employee posteu the
cash ueposit in the account of Floiencio Amauoi fiom his assumption that the
name Floiencio appeaiing on the leugei without, howevei, going thiough the
full name, is the same Floiencio stateu in the ueposit slip. Be shoulu have
continuously gone beyonu meie assumption, which was pioven to be
eiioneous, anu pioceeueu with cleai ceitainty, consiueiing the amount
involveu anu the iepeicussions it woulu cieate on the totality of the peison
notable of which is the cieuit stanuing of the peison involveu shoulu a mistake
happen. The checks issueu by the plaintiff in the couise of his business weie
uishonoieu by the bank because the leugei of Floiencio Reyes inuicateu a
balance insufficient to covei the face value of checks.

>%5 9%'*(5- ?@1;;1-7 ." $< 2 >&,,(+104

9;$%845*:

As a geneial iule, negligence in oiuei to ienuei a peison liable neeu not be the
sole cause of an injuiy. It is sufficient that his negligence, concuiiing with one oi
moie efficient causes othei than plaintiff's, is the pioximate cause of the injuiy.
Accoiuingly, wheie seveial causes combine to piouuce injuiies, a peison is not
ielieveu fiom liability because he is iesponsible foi only one of them, it being
sufficient that the negligence of the peison chaigeu with injuiy is an efficient
cause without which the injuiy woulu not have iesulteu to as gieat an extent,
anu that such cause is not attiibutable to the peison injuieu.

Facts:
1. The Nv Pavlouai, owneu anu opeiateu by the Fai Eastein Shipping
Company, aiiiveu at the Poit of Nanila fiom vancouvei, Canaua at
about 7:uuAN.
2. The vessel was assigneu Beith 4 of the Nanila Inteinational Poit.
Captain Robeito Abellana was taskeu by the Philippine Poit Authoiity
(PPA) to supeivise the beithing of the vessel. Beiein appellant Senen
uavino was assigneu by the Nanila Pilot's Association (NPA) to conuuct
uocking manoeuvies. They weie assisteu by Capt. victoi Kabankov.
S. Piioi to the beithing, the sea was calm anu the winu was iueal foi
uocking manoeuvies.
4. When the vessel was 2uuu feet fiom the piei, uavino oiueieu the
anchoi uioppeu. Bowevei, the anchoi uiu not take holu as expecteu.
The speeu of the vessel uiu not slacken.
S. The bow of the vessel iammeu into the apion of the piei causing
consiueiable uamage to the same. The vessel likewise sustaineu
uamage.
6. The PPA, thiough the Solicitoi ueneial, fileu befoie the RTC a complaint
foi sum of money against Fai Eastein Shipping, uavino, anu NPA. Tiial
couit oiueieu the uefenuants theiein jointly anu seveially to pay the
PPA the amount iequiieu. The CA affiimeu as to the soliuaiy liability of
Fai Eastein Shipping.

Issue (peitinent to concuiient negligence)
Woulu the ownei of the vessel be liable likewise if the uamage is causeu by the
concuiient negligence of the mastei of vessel anu the pilot unuei a compulsoiy
pilotage.

Belu:
The Couit founu that both Capt. uavino anu Capt. Kabankov weie negligent. Fai
Eastein Shipping is liable. Regaiuing the soliuaiy liability of Fai Eastein, the
Couit explaineu:

0n A.DAB220D@ D0FG(F0DA0, it is no uefense to one of the
concuiient toitfeasois that the injuiy woulu not have iesulteu
fiom his negligence alone, without the negligence oi wiongful
acts of the othei concuiient toitfeasoi. Wheie seveial causes
piouucing an injuiy aie concuiient anu each is an efficient
cause without which the injuiy woulu not have happeneu, the
injuiy may be attiibuteu to all oi any of the causes anu
iecoveiy may be hau against any oi all of the iesponsible
peisons although unuei the ciicumstances of the case, it may
appeai that one of them was moie culpable, anu that the uuty
oweu by them to the injuieu peison was not the same. No
actoi's negligence ceases to be a pioximate cause meiely
because it uoes not exceeu the negligence of othei actois. Each
wionguoei is iesponsible foi the entiie iesult anu is liable as
though his acts weie the sole cause of the injuiy.

Piof Casis: /"# 5+&6+5+/7 1, 1.# &%/1- +( .1/ &,,#%/#8 67 /"# .#05+0#.%# 1, &.1/"#-
&%/1 +, 61/" &%/( %149-+(# /"# 9-13+4&/# %&'(# 1, /"# +.:'-7; !"'(< +, =(#>#-&5
%&'(#( %146+.#? /1 9-18'%# +.:'-7< /"# &%/1- -#(91.(+65# ,1- 1.# %&'(# +( .1/
&6(15>#8 67 /"# ,&%/ /"&/ &.1/"#- &%/1- +( -#(91.(+65# ,1- &.1/"#- %&'(#; !"#
@1'-/A( (/&/#4#./ +495+#( /"&/ /"#-# +( 1.57 1.# 9-13+4&/# %&'(#< 6'/ /"+( 4&7
%1.(+(/ 1, (#>#-&5 %146+.#8 %&'(#(; !"+( +495+#( /"&/ #&%" %&'(# +.8#9#.8#./57 +(
+.%1495#/# /1 ,1-4 /"# 9-13+4&/# %&'(#;

A%B(*4 ." <5%-(*% 2 C(5-%-0(D
0ctobei 17, 1921
STREET, }.

Topic : Remote Cause

"#$%&'
Basilio Ilano anu Pioceso uayetano took a caiiomata with a view to going to a
cockpit. When the uiivei of the caiiomata hau tuineu his hoise anu staiteu in
the uiiection inuicateu, the uefenuant, Agaton Aianeta, steppeu out into the
stieet, stoppeu the hoise, anu at the same time piotesteu to the uiivei that he
himself hau calleu this caiiomata fiist.

The uiivei, }ulio Pagnaya, ieplieu that he hau not heaiu oi seen the call of
Aianeta. Pagnaya pulleu on the ieins of the biiule to fiee the hoise fiom the
contiol of Agaton Aianeta in oiuei that the vehicle might pass on.
Bowevei, uue to the looseness of the biiule on the hoise's heau oi to the
iottenness of the mateiial of which it was maue, the bit came out of the hoise's
mouth.

Pagnaya, the uiivei, anu Ilano, one of the passengeis, hau alighteu fiom the
caiiomata but uayetano unfoitunately ietaineu his seat.

When Pagnaya was tiying to fix the biiule, the hoise, being fiee fiom the contiol
of the bit, became uistuibeu anu moveu foiwaiu, in uoing he was able to pull
one of the wheels of the caiiomata up on the siuewalk; thus, stiiking a police
telephone box which was fixeu to a post on the siuewalk, upon which the box
came uown with a ciash anu fiighteneu the hoise to such an extent that the
hoise set out at full speeu up the stieet.

Aftei the iunaway hoise hau pioceeueu up the stieet to a point in fiont of the
Nission Bospital, uayetano jumpeu oi fell fiom the iig, anu in so uoing ieceiveu
injuiies fiom which he soon uieu.

Consequently, the wiuow of uayetano, Consolacion, fileu an action foi uamages
against Aianeta.

(CCB0'
Whethei Aianeta (the one who stoppeu the hoise) shoulu be helu liable foi the
ueath of passengei uayetano.

+0G9'
No. Aianeta shoulu not be helu liable. Bis stopping of the hoise is too iemote a
cause of ueath of uayetano.

2?@(.'

The meie fact that Aianeta inteifeieu with the caiiomata by stopping the hoise
woulu not make him liable foi the ueath of passengei uayetano.
The stopping of the iig by Agaton Aianeta in the miuule of the stieet was T00
REN0TE fiom the acciuent that piesently ensueu to be consiueieu the legal oi
pioximate cause theieof.
Noieovei, by getting out anu taking his post at the heau of the hoise, the uiivei
was the peison piimaiily iesponsible foi the contiol of the animal, anu the
uefenuant cannot be chaigeu with liability foi the acciuent iesulting fiom the
action of the hoise theieaftei.
Aftei }ulio Pagnaya alighteu, the hoise was conuucteu to the cuib anu that an
appieciable inteival of time elapseu - some witnesses say seveial minutes -
befoie the hoise staiteu on his caieei up the stieet.
B/"#- .+%#C/1CD.1E +.,1-4&/+1. ,-14 /"# %&(#F
The eviuence inuicates that the biiule was olu, anu the leathei of which it was
maue was piobably so weak as to be easily bioken.
}ulio Pagnaya testifies to one fact which, if it weie fully accieuiteu, woulu
possibly put a uiffeient complexion on the case; foi he says that when the hoise
was pulleu ovei to the cuib, the uefenuant gesticulateu with one of his aims anu
inciuentally biought his hanu uown on the hoise's nose. This, accoiuing to
Pagnaya, is what maue the hoise iun away. Theie is no othei witness who
testifies to this; anu it is notewoithy that Basilio Ilano uoes not mention it. A
ueciueu pieponueiance of the eviuence in oui opinion is against it.

@&(+( G49"&(+( 1. "+( 611DF
In this case, TINE anu C0NTR0L ovei the vehicle was ueteiminative as to
whethei a paiticulai act was consiueieu a pioximate cause.

:@4(-1E $4-'*5&+*14- ." F<$ = /%-%,4
Facts:
At about 1:Su a.m. on Novembei 1S, 197S, piivate iesponuent Leonaiuo
Bionisio was on his way home fiom cocktails anu uinnei meeting with his boss.
Be was pioceeuing uown ueneial Lacuna Stieet when he saw a Foiu uump
tiuck paikeu askew, paitly blocking the way of oncoming tiaffic, with no lights
oi eaily waining ieflectoi uevices. The tiuck was uiiven eailiei by Aimanuo
Caibonel, a iegulai uiivei of the petitionei company. Bionisio tiieu to sweive
his cai to the left, but it was too late. Be suffeieu some physical injuiies anu
neivous bieakuown. Bionision fileu an action foi uamages against Caibonel anu
Phoenix Insuiance. Petitioneis counteieu the claim by imputing the acciuent to
iesponuent's own negligence in uiiving at high speeu without cuifew pass anu
heaulights, anu while intoxicateu. The tiial couit anu the Couit of Appeals iuleu
in favoi of piivate iesponuent.

Issue:
Whethei the collision was biought about by the way the tiuck was paikeu, oi by
iesponuent's own negligence
Belu:

We finu that piivate iesponuent Bionisio was unable to piove possession of a
valiu cuifew pass uuiing the night of the acciuent anu that the pieponueiance of
eviuence shows that he uiu not have such a pass uuiing that night. It is the
petitioneis' contention that Bionisio puiposely shut off his heaulights even
befoie he ieacheu the inteisection so as not to be uetecteu by the police in the
police piecinct which he (being a iesiuent in the aiea) knew was not fai away
fiom the inteisection. We believe that the petitioneis' theoiy is a moie cieuible
explanation than that offeieu by piivate iesponuent Bionisio, i.e., that he hau his
heaulights on but that, at the ciucial moment, these hau in some mysteiious if
convenient way malfunctioneu anu gone off, although he succeeueu in switching
his lights on again at "biight" split seconus befoie contact with the uump tiuck.
We uo not believe that this eviuence is sufficient to show that Bionisio was so
heavily unuei the influence of liquoi as to constitute his uiiving a motoi vehicle
pei se an act of ieckless impiuuence. The conclusion we uiaw fiom the factual
ciicumstances outlineu above is that piivate iesponuent Bionisio was negligent
the night of the acciuent. Be was huiiying home that night anu uiiving fastei
than he shoulu have been. Woise, he extinguisheu his heaulights at oi neai the
inteisection of ueneial Lacuna anu ueneial Santos Stieets anu thus uiu not see
the uump tiuck that was paikeu askew anu sticking out onto the ioau lane.

Nonetheless, we agiee with the Couit of Fiist Instance anu the Inteimeuiate
Appellate Couit that the legal anu pioximate cause of the acciuent anu of
Bionisio's injuiies was the wiongful oi negligent mannei in which the uump
tiuck was paikeu in othei woius, the negligence of petitionei Caibonel. The
collision of Bionisio's cai with the uump tiuck was a natuial anu foieseeable
consequence of the tiuck uiivei's negligence.

The uistinctions between "cause" anu "conuition" which the 'petitioneis woulu
have us auopt have alieauy been "almost entiiely uiscieuiteu. If the uefenuant
has cieateu only a passive static conuition which maue the uamage possible, the
uefenuant is saiu not to be liable. But so fai as the fact of causation is conceineu,
in the sense of necessaiy anteceuents which have playeu an impoitant pait in
piouucing the iesult it is quite impossible to uistinguish between active foices
anu passive situations, paiticulaily since, as is invaiiably the case, the lattei aie
the iesult of othei active foices which have gone befoie. Even the lapse of a
consiueiable time uuiing which the "conuition" iemains static will not
necessaiily affect liability. "Cause" anu "conuition" still finu occasional mention
in the uecisions; but the uistinction is now almost entiiely uiscieuiteu. So fai as
it has any valiuity at all, it must iefei to the type of case wheie the foices set in
opeiation by the uefenuant have come to iest in a position of appaient safety,
anu some new foice inteivenes. But even in such cases, it is not the uistinction
between "cause" anu "conuition" which is impoitant but the natuie of the iisk
anu the chaiactei of the inteivening cause.

We believe, seconuly, that the tiuck uiivei's negligence fai fiom being a
"passive anu static conuition" was iathei an inuispensable anu efficient cause.
The impiopei paiking of the uump tiuck cieateu an unieasonable iisk of injuiy
foi anyone uiiving uown ueneial Lacuna Stieet anu foi having so cieateu this
iisk, the tiuck uiivei must be helu iesponsible. In oui view, Bionisio's
negligence, although latei in point of time than the tiuck uiivei's negligence anu
theiefoie closei to the acciuent, was not an efficient inteivening oi inuepenuent
cause.

The uefenuant cannot be ielieveu fiom liability by the fact that the iisk oi a
substantial anu impoitant pait of the iisk, to which the uefenuant has subjecteu
the plaintiff has inueeu come to pass. Foieseeable inteivening foices aie within
the scope oiiginal iisk, anu hence of the uefenuant's negligence. The couits aie
quite geneially agieeu that inteivening causes which fall faiily in this categoiy
will not supeiseue the uefenuant's iesponsibility. Thus, a uefenuant who blocks
the siuewalk anu foices the plaintiff to walk in a stieet wheie the plaintiff will
be exposeu to the iisks of heavy tiaffic becomes liable when the plaintiff is iun
uown by a cai, even though the cai is negligently uiiven; anu one who paiks an
automobile on the highway without lights at night is not ielieveu of
iesponsibility when anothei negligently uiives into it. We holu that piivate
iesponuent Bionisio's negligence was "only contiibutoiy," that the "immeuiate
anu pioximate cause" of the injuiy iemaineu the tiuck uiivei's "lack of uue
caie" anu that consequently iesponuent Bionisio may iecovei uamages though
such uamages aie subject to mitigation by the couits.

Petitioneis also ask us to apply what they iefei to as the "last cleai chance"
uoctiine. The common law notion of last cleai chance peimitteu couits to giant
iecoveiy to a plaintiff who hau also been negligent pioviueu that the uefenuant
hau the last cleai chance to avoiu the casualty anu faileu to uo so. Accoiuingly, it
is uifficult to see what iole, if any, the common law last cleai chance uoctiine
has to play in a juiisuiction wheie the common law concept of contiibutoiy
negligence as an absolute bai to iecoveiy by the plaintiff, has itself been
iejecteu, as it has been in Aiticle 2179 of the Civil Coue of the Philippines. 0nuei
Aiticle 2179, the task of a couit, in technical teims, is to ueteimine whose
negligence - the plaintiff's oi the uefenuant's - was the legal oi pioximate cause
of the injuiy. The ielative location in the continuum of time of the plaintiff's anu
the uefenuant's negligent acts oi omissions, is only one of the ielevant factois
that may be taken into account. 0f moie funuamental impoitance aie the natuie
of the negligent act oi omission of each paity anu the chaiactei anu giavity of
the iisks cieateu by such act oi omission foi the iest of the community. 0ui law
on quasi-uelicts seeks to ieuuce the iisks anu buiuens of living in society anu to
allocate them among the membeis of society. To accept the petitioneis' pio-
position must tenu to weaken the veiy bonus of society.

We believe that the uemanus of substantial justice aie satisfieu by allocating
most of the uamages on a 2u-8u iatio. Thus, 2u% of the uamages awaiueu by
the iesponuent appellate couit, except the awaiu of P1u,uuu.uu as exemplaiy
uamages anu P4,Suu.uu as attoiney's fees anu costs, shall be boine by piivate
iesponuent Bionisio; only the balance of 8u% neeus to be paiu by petitioneis
Caibonel anu Phoenix who shall be soliuaiity liable theiefoi to the foimei. The
awaiu of exemplaiy uamages anu attoiney's fees anu costs shall be boine
exclusively by the petitioneis. Phoenix is of couise entitleu to ieimbuisement
fiom Caibonel. 18 We see no sufficient ieason foi uistuibing the ieuuceu awaiu
of uamages maue by the iesponuent appellate couit.

9N @*O#5 LM P;&* A645Q R>4,,*5# %#S*5 T8;: %6* U*OV

Injuieu Paity: Nissan owneu by By Teban Tiauing
Negligent Paity: Biivei of Piimemovei owneu by Libeiy Foiest

Facts:

0n }uly 4, 199S, at aiounu 4:4S a.m., Rogelio 0itiz, with helpei Romeo
Catamoia, was uiiving a Nissan van owneu by petitionei By Teban Tiauing, Inc.
along the National Bighway in H&-&.0&7 Sumilihon, Butuan City, going to
Suiigao City. They weie ueliveiing commeicial ice to neaiby 6&-&.0&7( anu
municipalities.

A }oana Paula passengei bus was ciuising on the opposite lane towaius the
van. In between the two vehicles was a paikeu piime movei with a tiailei,
owneu by piivate iesponuent Libeity Foiest, Inc.

The night befoie, at aiounu 1u:uu p.m., the piime movei with tiailei suffeieu a
tiie blowout. The uiivei, piivate iesponuent Ciesilito Limbaga, paikeu the
piime movei askew occupying a substantial poition of the national highway, on
the lane of the passengei bus. Be paikeu the piime movei with tiailei at the
shouluei of the ioau with the left wheels still on the cementeu highway anu the
iight wheels on the sanu anu giavel shouluei of the highway.

The piime movei was not equippeu with tiiangulai, collapsible ieflectoiizeu
plates, the eaily waining uevice iequiieu unuei Lettei of Instiuction No.
229. As substitute, Limbaga placeu a banana tiunk with leaves on the fiont anu
the ieai poition of the piime movei to wain incoming motoiists. It is allegeu
that Limbaga likewise placeu keiosene lighteu tin cans on the fiont anu ieai of
the tiailei.

To avoiu hitting the paikeu piime movei occupying its lane, the incoming
passengei bus sweiveu to the iight, onto the lane of the appioaching Nissan
van. 0itiz saw two biight anu glaiing heaulights anu the appioaching passengei
bus. Be pumpeu his bieak slowly, sweiveu to the left to avoiu the oncoming bus
but the van hit the fiont of the stationaiy piime movei. The passengei bus hit
the ieai of the piime movei.|6j

0itiz anu Catamoia only suffeieu minoi injuiies. The Nissan van, howevei,
became inopeiable as a iesult of the inciuent.

(CCB0'
Whethei oi not PiimeNovei is liable foi the uamages suffeieu by the
Nissan van

+0G9' H0C
Befenuant Libeity Foiest, Inc. uiu not exeicise the uiligence of a goou
fathei of a family in managing anu iunning its business. The eviuence on iecoiu
shows that it faileu to pioviue its piime movei anu tiailei with the iequiieu
eaily waining uevices with ieflectois anu it uiu not keep piopei maintenance
anu conuition of the piime movei anu the tiailei. The ciicumstances show that
the tiailei weie pioviueu with woinout tiies anu with only one (1) piece of
spaie tiie.
We finu that Limbaga was utteily negligent in paiking the piime movei
askew on the iight siue of the national highway. The vehicle occupieu a
substantial poition of the national ioau on the lane of the passengei bus. It is
common sense that the skeweu paiking of the piime movei on the national ioau
poseu a seiious iisk to oncoming motoiists. It was incumbent upon Limbaga to
take some measuies to pievent that iisk, oi at least minimize it.

Piivate iesponuent Libeity Foiest, Inc. was utteily negligent in allowing
a novice uiivei, like Limbaga, to opeiate a vehicle, such as a tiuck loaueu with a
bulluozei, which iequiieu highly specializeu uiiving skills. The employei cleaily
faileu to piopeily supeivise Limbaga in uiiving the piime movei.

Limbaga was negligent in paiking the piime movei on the national
highway. Libeity Foiest, Inc. was also negligent in failing to supeivise Limbaga
anu in ensuiing that the piime movei was in piopei conuition.

** Facts of the case ieveal that when 0itiz, the uiivei of the tiuck, faileu to give
the }oana Paula bus the space on the ioau it neeueu, the lattei vehicle sciapeu
its ieai iight siue on the piotiuueu bulluozei blaue anu the impact thiew the
bus uiiectly on the path of the oncoming tiuck. This maue plaintiffs-
appellantsappellees concluue that the }oana Paula bus occupieu its lane which
foiceu 0itiz, the uiivei of the tiuck, to sweive to its left anu iam the fiont of the
paikeu tiailei.

** To sustain a claim baseu on I'&(+C8#5+%/, the following iequisites must concui:
(a) uamage suffeieu by plaintiff; (b) fault oi negligence of uefenuant; anu (c)
connection of cause anu effect between the fault oi negligence of uefenuant anu
the uamage incuiieu by plaintiff.

**The two (2) flat tiies suffeieu by the tiailei anu these two (2) tiies weie
attacheu to one of the two (2) I-beams oi axles attacheu to the ieai of the tiailei
which axle is veiy neai but behinu the othei axle anu with the location , it woulu
have the othei beam suffei the flat tiies as it has to beai the biunt of weight of
the B-8 bulluozei.

A,%- ." F<$ 2 /4-G45*
Naivasa | 18 Nay 89

FACTS: Engineei Calibo, Roianes, anu Patos weie on the jeep, with Calibo at the
wheel, as it appioacheu a biiuge going towaius the uiiection of Bavao City. At
about that time, the caigo tiuck, Zacaiias coming fiom the opposite uiiection of
Bavao City hau just ciosseu saiu biiuge. At about S9 yaius aftei ciossing the
biiuge, the caigo tiuck anu the jeep colliueu as a consequence of which
Engineei Calibo uieu while Roianes anu Patos sustaineu physical injuiies.
Zacaiias was unhuit. As a iesult of the impact, the left siue of the tiuck was
slightly uamageu while the left siue of the jeep,\ was extensively uamageu. Aftei
the impact, the jeep fell anu iesteu on its iight siue on the asphalteu ioau a few
meteis to the ieai of the tiuck, while the tiuck stoppeu on its wheels on the
ioau.

A case foi uamages was fileu by the suiviving spouse anu chiluien of the late
Engineei Calibo against the uiivei anu owneis of the caigo tiuck with the CFI of
Bohol.

Accoiuingly, the Couit uismisseu the complaint "foi insufficiency of eviuence"
The Couit of Appeals saw things uiffeiently. It ienueieu juugment 9 on the
plaintiffs' appeal, ieveising the uecision of the Tiial Couit. It founu Zacaiias to
be negligent anu his negligence "gave iise to the piesumption of negligence on
the pait of his employei, anu theii liability is both piimaiy anu soliuaiy." It
theiefoie oiueieu "the uefenuants jointly anu soliuaiily to inuemnify the
plaintiffs

The uefenuants have appealeu to this Couit on ceitioiaii anu piay foi a ieveisal
of the juugment of the IAC which, it is claimeu, ignoieu oi ian countei to the
establisheu facts

ISS0E:
1. W0N the uecision of the IAC was eiioneous
2. W0N the uoctiine of last cleai chance is applicable in this case

BELB: The appealeu juugment of the IAC is heieby REvERSEB
1. YES. The SC founu Calibo negligent insteau, because of the following:

1. It is allegeu that at the time of the collision, the tiuck was occupying
2S cm of the jeep's lane. Bowevei it was founu out that the centie stiipe
of the ioau is misaligneu anu with the coiiect calculation of the wiuth of
the ioau, the tiuck on still on its piopei lane anu it was actually the jeep
who is intiuuing the tiuck's lane.

2. Noi was the Appellate Couit coiiect in finuing that Zacaiias hau
acteu negligently in applying his biakes insteau of getting back insiue
his lane upon the coming of the appioaching jeep. Being well within his
own lane, as has alieauy been explaineu, he hau no uuty to sweive out
of the jeep's way as saiu Couit woulu have hau him uo. Anu even
supposing that he was in fact paitly insiue the opposite lane, coming to
a full stop with the jeep still Su meteis away cannot be consiueieu an
unsafe oi impiuuent action.

S. 0nlike Zacaiias who ieauily submitteu himself to investigation by the
police, Calibo's companions, Roianes anu Patos, who suffeieu injuiies
on account of the collision, iefuseu to be so investigateu oi give
statements to the police officeis is a "telling inuication that they uiu not
attiibute the happening to uefenuant Zacaiias' negligence oi fault."

The eviuence not only acquits Zacaiias of any negligence in the mattei;
theie aie also quite a few significant inuicatois that it was iathei
Engineei Calibo's negligence that was the pioximate cause of the
acciuent. Zacaiias hau tolu Patiolman Bimaano at the scene of the
collision anu latei confiimeu in his wiitten statement at the police
heauquaiteis that the jeep hau been "zigzagging," which is to say that it
was tiavelling oi being uiiven eiiatically at the time. The othei
investigatoi also testifieu that eyewitnesses to the acciuent hau
iemaikeu on the jeep's "zigzagging." Theie was also testimony that
Calibo was uiunk while uiiving the jeep.

2. YES. Even, howevei, ignoiing these tell-tale inuicia of negligence on the pait
of Calibo, anu assuming some anteceuent negligence on the pait of Zacaiias in
failing to keep within his uesignateu lane, incoiiectly uemaicateu as it was, the
physical facts woulu still absolve the lattei of any actionable iesponsibility foi
the acciuent unuei the iule of the last cleai chance.

Both uiiveis, as the Appellate Couit founu, hau hau a full view of each othei's
vehicle fiom a uistance of 1Su meteis. The tiuck hau been biought to a stop
while the jeep was still thiity meteis away. Fiom these facts the logical
conclusion emeiges that the uiivei of the jeep hau what juuicial uoctiine has
appiopiiately calleu the last cleai chance to avoiu the acciuent, while still at that
uistance of thiity meteis fiom the tiuck, by stopping in his tuin oi sweiving his
jeep away fiom the tiuck, eithei of which he hau sufficient time to uo while
iunning at a speeu of only thiity kilometies pei houi. In those ciicumstances,
his uuty was to seize that oppoitunity of avoiuance, not meiely iely on a
supposeu iight to expect the tiuck to sweive anu leave him a cleai path.

The uoctiine of the last cleai chance pioviues as valiu anu complete a uefense to
acciuent liability touay as it uiu when invokeu anu applieu in the 1918 case of
Picait vs. Smith, supia, which involveu a similai state of facts.

Since saiu iuling cleaily applies to exoneiate petitionei Zacaiias anu his
employei (anu co-petitionei) ueoige Lim, an inquiiy into whethei oi not the
eviuence suppoits the lattei's auuitional uefense of uue uiligence in the
selection anu supeivision of saiu uiivei is no longei necessaiy anu wig not be
unueitaken. The fact is that theie is such eviuence in the iecoiu which has not
been contioveiteu.

H'I&-04 $%-,%' J <-7(,1-% $%-,%' ." $<K <'1%- ?%.1-7' )%-8K
/%E1I4 $" $4-*5(5%'K J !1+(-*( /%L4'+% 2 M%I1-71*
28 Febiuaiy 2uuu
}. Puiisima

Facts:
! August 1982 - 0smunuo Canlas anu vicente Naosca ueciueu to
ventuie in business anu iaise the capital neeueu theiefoi. Canlas
executeu a SPA authoiizing Naosca to moitgage 2 paicels of lanu with
semi-conciete iesiuential house theieon owneu by spouses Canlas
! Canlas agieeu to sell saiu paicels of lanu foi 8Suk, Suuk payable within
1 week, anu the balance SSuk to seive as his investment in the
business. Thus, Canlas ueliveieu to Naosca the tiansfei ceitificates of
title. Naosca issueu 2 postuateu checks in the amounts of 4uk anu
46uk but it tuineu out that the check coveiing the biggei amount was
not sufficiently funueu.
! Sept. S, 1982 - Naosca was able to moitgage the 2 paicels of lanu foi
1uuk to a ceitain Atty. Nanuel Nagno with the help of impostois who
misiepiesenteu themselves as the spouses Canlas.
! Sept. 29, 1982 - Asian Savings Bank gianteu Naosca a loan amounting
to Suuk with the use of the 2 paicels of lanu as secuiity, anu with the
involvement of the same impostois who misiepiesenteu themselves as
the spouses Canlas. When the loan was not paiu, Asian Savings Bank
extiajuuicially foiecloseu the moitgage.
! }an. 1S, 198S, 0smunuo wiote a lettei infoiming Asian Savings Bank
that the execution of subject moitgage was without theii authoiity anu
iequests that steps aie taken to annul anuoi ievoke the questioneu
moitgage. Canlas fileu foi annulment of ueeu of ieal estate moitgage
with piayei foi the issuance of a wiit of pieliminaiy injunction. TC
annulleu the subject ueeu of moitgage. CA ieveiseu

Issues:
1. WN Asian Savings Bank exeiciseu uue uiligence in gianting the loan
application
2. WN Asian Savings Bank is liable to beai the loss
Belu:
1. No.

The uegiee of uiligence iequiieu of banks is moie than that of a goou fathei of a
family as the business of a bank is affecteu with public inteiest. In the case,
fiom the eviuence piesenteu it can be gleaneu uneiiingly that the bank uiu not
obseive the iequisite uiligence in asceitaining oi veiifying the ieal iuentity of
the couple who intiouuceu themselves as the spouses Canlas. Not even a single
IB was exhibiteu by saiu impostois anu yet, the bank on theii iepiesentatives
simply on the basis of the iesiuence ceitificates beaiing signatuies on a
pievious ueeu of moitgage which tenueu to match the signatuies affixeu on a
pievious ueeu of moitgage to a ceitain Atty. Nagno.

The negligence of the bank was magnifieu by the fact that the pievious ueeu of
moitgage useu as basis foi checking the genuineness of the signatuies of the
supposeu Canlas spouses uiu not bei the tax account numbei of the spouses as
well as the CTC of Angelina Canlas. Bespite such fact, the bank uiu not iequiie
the impostois to submit auuitiona pioof of theii tiue iuentity.

2. Yes
0nuei the last cleai chance uoctiine, the bank must suffei the iesulting loss. In
essence, the uoctiine of the last cleai chance is to the effect that wheie both
paities aie negligent but the negligent act of one is appieciably latei in point of
time than that of the othei, oi wheie it is impossible to ueteimine whose fault
oi negligence biought about the occuiience of the inciuent, the one who hau the
last cleai oppoitunity to avoiu the impeuing haim but faileu to uo so, is
chaigeable with the consequences aiising theiefiom.

Assuming that 0smunuo was negligent in giving Naosca the oppoitunity to
peipetuate the fiauu by entiusting the ownei's copy of the lanu titles, it cannot
be uenieu that the bank hau the last cleai chance to pievent the fiauu, by the
simple expeuient of faithfully complying with the iequiiements foi banks to
asceitain the iuentity of the peisons tiansacting with them

Foi not obseiving the uegiee of uiligence iequiieu of banking institutions, Asian
Savings Bank has to beai the loss sueu upon.

J1/#F @1'-/ "#58 /"&/ @&.5&( E&( &5(1 .#05+0#./ E"+%" 4&8# "+4 '.8#(#->+.0 1,
K//7A( ,##(

N%;%-0%6 . <-7%,% 2 H7(-%
-Ciewcab owneu by petitionei coipoiation (uiiven by Beocampo) colliues with
pick-up tiuck owneu by iesponuents

-left uooi, fiont fenuei, anu pait of the fiont bumpei of pick-up was uamageu

-R's veision of events: allegeu that he was slowing uown to S-1u kph anu was
making a left tuin when the ciewcab (iunning at 6u-7u kph) bumpeu R's vehicle
fiom behinu

-P's veision of events: both vehicles weie iunning at 4u kph. Pick-up was 1u
meteis in fiont on the outei lane. Pick-up (without signaling) attempteu to
make a 0-tuin to the left.

-P's uiivei allegeuly tiieu to avoiu the pick-up but was unable to avoiu the
collision. Be fuithei allegeu that he uiu not apply the biakes because he knew
the collision was unavoiuable anu that he steppeu on the biakes only aftei the
collision.

(&&)*' W0N P is liable

+*,-' Yes
-both paities weie negligent:

-R was in the wiong lane (outei) when he tiieu to execcute the 0-tuin; he
shoulu have stayeu in the innei lane neai the centei of the highway if he
intenueu to make a 0-tuin

-P shoulu have sloweu uown when R sloweu uown to make the 0-tuin; P coulu
have avoiueu R if he was not uiiving veiy fast piioi to collision

-since both paities weie at fault, uoctiine of last cleai chance applies.

-uoctiine of last cleai chance states that wheie both paities aie negligent but
the negligent act of one is appieciably latei than that of the othei, oi wheie it is
impossible to ueteimine whose fault oi negligence causeu the loss, the one who
hau the last cleai oppoitunity to avoiu the loss but faileu to uo so is chaigeable
with the loss.

-P hau the last cleai chance to avoiu the collision. Since P was uiiving the ieai
vehicle, he hau full contiol of the situation since he was in a position to obseive
the vehicle in fiont of him. P hau the iesponsibility of avoiuing bumping the
vehicle in fiont of him.

-a 0-tuin is uone at a much slowei speeu to avoiu skiuuing anu oveituining,
compaieu to iunning stiaight aheau. < $;),- 6#L* #L;4-*- %6* L*64$,* 4T 6*
U#& 5;% -84L45Q L*8N T#&% U64,* T;,,;U45Q 2.

-P was not only uiiving fast, he also aumitteu that he uiu not step on the biakes
even upon seeing R. Be only steppeu on the biakes aftei the collision.

-P Lapanuay soliuaiily liable with uiivei

-Noial uamages awaiueu to R

:@1,1;;1-( )%-8 4G $4II(5+( . $< 2 9'+%,4-%
1997

RNC fileu a complaint to iecovei fiom PBC PSu4,979, iepiesenting vaiious
ueposits it maue in its cuiient account with saiu bank but which weie not
cieuiteu to its account, anu weie insteau uepositeu to the account of one
Bienveniuo Cotas, allegeuly uue to the gioss anu inexcusable negligence of the
bank.
Fiom Nay S, 197S to }uly 16, 1976, RNC claims to have entiusteu funus in
secietaiy, Iiene Yabut, foi the puipose of uepositing saiu funus in the cuiient
accounts of RNC with PBC. It tuineu out, howevei, that these ueposits, on all
occasions, weie not cieuiteu to RNC's account but weie insteau uepositeu to
Account No. SS-u17S4-7 of Yabut's husbanu, Bienveniuo Cotas who likewise
maintains an account with the same bank. Buiing this peiiou, petitionei bank
hau, howevei, been iegulaily fuinishing piivate iesponuent with monthly
statements showing its cuiient accounts balances. 0nfoitunately, it hau nevei
been the piactice of Romeo Lipana to check these monthly statements.
Iiene Yabut's 418'( 19#-&.8+: she woulu accomplish two (2) copies of the
ueposit slip, an oiiginal anu a uuplicate. The oiiginal showeu the name of hei
husbanu as uepositoi anu his cuiient account numbei. 0n the uuplicate copy
was wiitten the account numbei of hei husbanu but the name of the account
holuei was left blank. PBC's tellei, Azucena Nabayau, woulu, howevei, valiuate
anu stamp both the oiiginal anu the uuplicate of these ueposit slips ietaining
only the oiiginal copy uespite the lack of infoimation on the uuplicate slip. The
seconu copy was kept by Iiene Yabut allegeuly foi iecoiu puiposes. Aftei
valiuation, Yabut woulu then fill up the name of RNC in the space left blank in
the uuplicate copy anu change the account numbei wiitten theieon, which is
that of hei husbanu's, anu make it appeai to be RNC's account numbei, +.#., C.A.
No. SS-u198u-S. This went on in a span of moie than one (1) yeai without
piivate iesponuent's knowleuge.
0pon uiscoveiy of the loss of its funus, RNC uemanueu fiom petitionei bank the
ietuin of its money, but as its uemanu went unheeueu, it fileu a collection suit.
The tiial couit founu petitionei bank negligent.
ISS0E: What is the pioximate cause of the loss, to the tune of PSu4,979.74,
suffeieu by the piivate iesponuent RNC petitionei bank's negligence oi that
of piivate iesponuent's.
SC: The bank's tellei, Ns. Azucena Nabayau, was negligent in valiuating,
officially stamping anu signing all the ueposit slips piepaieu anu piesenteu by
Ns. Yabut, uespite the glaiing fact that the uuplicate copy was not completely
accomplisheu contiaiy to the self-imposeu pioceuuie of the bank with iespect
to the piopei valiuation of ueposit slips, oiiginal oi uuplicate, as testifieu to by
Ns. Nabayau heiself.
Ns. Nabayau faileu to obseive pioceuuie. The fact that the uuplicate slip was
not compulsoiily iequiieu by the bank in accepting ueposits shoulu not ielieve
the petitionei bank of iesponsibility. The ouu ciicumstance alone that such
uuplicate copy lackeu one vital infoimation that of the name of the account
holuei shoulu have alieauy put Ns. Nabayau on guaiu. Rathei than ieauily
valiuating the incomplete uuplicate copy, she shoulu have pioceeueu moie
cautiously by being moie piobing as to the tiue ieason why the name of the
account holuei in the uuplicate slip was left blank while that in the oiiginal was
filleu up.
Negligence heie lies not only on the pait of Ns. Nabayau but also on the pait of
the bank itself in its lackauaisical selection anu supeivision of Ns. Nabayau.
This was exemplifieu in the testimony of Ni. Romeo Bonifacio, then Nanagei of
the Pasig Bianch of the petitionei bank anu now its vice-Piesiuent, to the effect
that, while he oiueieu the investigation of the inciuent, he nevei came to know
that blank ueposit slips weie valiuateu in total uisiegaiu of the bank's valiuation
pioceuuies.
It was this negligence of Ns. Azucena Nabayau, coupleu by the negligence of the
petitionei bank in the selection anu supeivision of its bank tellei, which was the
pioximate cause of the loss suffeieu by the piivate iesponuent, anu not the
lattei's act of entiusting cash to a uishonest employee, as insisteu by the
petitioneis.
Pioximate cause is ueteimineu on the facts of each case upon mixeu
consiueiations of logic, common sense, policy anu pieceuent.
WX
vua. ue Bataclan
v. Neuina,
WY
ieiteiateu in the case of H&.D 1, /"# 2"+5. L(5&.8( >. @1'-/ 1, K99#&5(,
WZ
uefines pioximate cause as "that cause, which, in natuial anu continuous
sequence, unbioken by any efficient inteivening cause, piouuces the injuiy, anu
without which the iesult woulu not have occuiieu. . . ." In this case, absent the
act of Ns. Nabayau in negligently valiuating the incomplete uuplicate copy of
the ueposit slip, Ns. Iiene Yabut woulu not have the facility with which to
peipetiate hei fiauuulent scheme with impunity.
Fuitheimoie, unuei the uoctiine of "last cleai chance" (also iefeiieu to, at times
as "supeivening negligence" oi as "uiscoveieu peiil"), petitionei bank was
inueeu the culpable paity.
Assuming that piivate iesponuent RNC was negligent in entiusting cash to a
uishonest employee, thus pioviuing the lattei with the oppoitunity to uefiauu
the company, as auvanceu by the petitionei, yet it cannot be uenieu that the
petitionei bank, thiu its tellei, hau the last cleai oppoitunity to aveit the injuiy
incuiieu by its client, simply by faithfully obseiving theii self-imposeu
valiuation pioceuuie.
While it is tiue that hau piivate iesponuent checkeu the monthly statements of
account sent by the petitionei bank to RNC, the lattei woulu have uiscoveieu
the loss eaily on, such cannot be useu by the petitioneis to escape liability. This
omission on the pait of the piivate iesponuent uoes not change the fact that
weie it not foi the wanton anu ieckless negligence of the petitioneis' employee
in valiuating the incomplete uuplicate ueposit slips piesenteu by Ns. Iiene
Yabut, the loss woulu not have occuiieu.
The foiegoing notwithstanuing, it cannot be uenieu that, inueeu, piivate
iesponuent was likewise negligent in not checking its monthly statements of
account. Bau it uone so, the company woulu have been aleiteu to the seiies of
fiauus being committeu against RNC by its secietaiy.
The uecision of Couit of Appeals is mouifieu by ieuucing the amount of actual
uamages piivate iesponuent is entitleu to by 4u%.
A.DC.G(9?@09 J?DK 1CM @+0 A.DC.G(9?@09 J?DK #5-
@2BC@ A.2<.2?@(.D L&M A.B2@ ." ?<<0?GC #5- GMAM 9(?[
#5- A.><?DH3 A<?\& E 9;:45Q; #& *-4%*- ON <*8*]
"#$%&'
! In Naich 1976, L.C. Biaz openeu a savings account with Soliubank. 0n
14 August 1991, L.C. Biaz thiough its cashiei, Neiceues Nacaiaya, filleu
up a savings (cash) ueposit slip foi P99u anu a savings (checks) ueposit
slip foi PSu. Nacaiaya instiucteu the messengei of L.C. Biaz, Ismael
Calapie, to ueposit the money with Soliubank. Nacaiaya also gave
Calapie the Soliubank passbook.
! Calapie went to Soliubank anu piesenteu to Tellei No. 6 the two
ueposit slips anu the passbook. The tellei acknowleugeu the ieceipt of
the ueposit by ietuining to Calapie the uuplicate copies of the two
ueposit slips. Tellei No. 6 stampeu the ueposit slips with the woius
"B0PLICATE" anu "SAvINu TELLER 6 S0LIBBANK BEAB 0FFICE."
Since the tiansaction took time anu Calapie hau to make anothei
ueposit foi L.C. Biaz with Allieu Bank, he left the passbook with
Soliubank. Calapie then went to Allieu Bank. When Calapie ietuineu to
Soliubank to ietiieve the passbook, Tellei No. 6 infoimeu him that
"somebouy got the passbook." Calapie went back to L.C. Biaz anu
iepoiteu the inciuent to Nacaiaya.
! Nacaiaya immeuiately piepaieu a ueposit slip in uuplicate copies with
a check of P2uu,uuu. Nacaiaya anu Calapie went to Soliubank anu
piesenteu to Tellei No. 6 the ueposit slip anu check. The tellei stampeu
the woius "B0PLICATE" anu "SAvINu TELLER 6 S0LIBBANK BEAB
0FFICE" on the uuplicate copy of the ueposit slip. When Nacaiaya
askeu foi the passbook, Tellei No. 6 tolu Nacaiaya that someone got the
passbook but she coulu not iemembei to whom she gave the passbook.
When Nacaiaya askeu Tellei No. 6 if Calapie got the passbook, Tellei
No. 6 answeieu that someone shoitei than Calapie got the passbook.
Calapie was then stanuing besiue Nacaiaya.
! The following uay L.C. Biaz leaineu of the unauthoiizeu withuiawal the
uay befoie (14 August 1991) of PSuu,uuu fiom its savings account. The
withuiawal slip foi the PSuu,uuu boie the signatuies of the authoiizeu
signatoiies of L.C. Biaz, namely Biaz anu Rustico L. Nuiillo. The
signatoiies, howevei, uenieu signing the withuiawal slip. A ceitain Noel
Tamayo ieceiveu the PSuu,uuu.
! L.C. Biaz uemanueu fiom Soliubank the ietuin of its money. Soliubank
iefuseu. L.C. Biaz fileu a Complaint foi Recoveiy of a Sum of Noney
against Soliubank. The tiial couit absolveu Soliubank. L.C. Biaz
appealeu to the CA. CA ieveiseu the ecision of the tiial couit. CA uenieu
the motion foi ieconsiueiation of Soliubank. But it mouifieu its uecision
by ueleting the awaiu of exemplaiy uamages anu attoiney's fees. Bence
this petition.
(&&)*'
! W0N petitionei Soliubank is liable.
+*,-'
! Yes. Soliubank is liable foi bieach of contiact uue to negligence, oi
culpa contiactual.
Theie is a uebtoi-cieuitoi ielationship between the bank anu its uepositoi. The
bank is the uebtoi anu the uepositoi is the cieuitoi. The law imposes on banks
high stanuaius in view of the fiuuciaiy natuie of bankingThe fiuuciaiy natuie of
banking iequiies banks to assume a uegiee of uiligence highei than that of a
goou fathei of a family. Section 2 of RA 8791 piesciibes the statutoiy uiligence
iequiieu fiom banks - that banks must obseive "high stanuaius of integiity anu
peifoimance" in seivicing theii uepositois.

C;,4-O#5S\& J8*#$6 ;T 4%& A;5%8#$%)#, .O,4Q#%4;5

In culpa contiactual, once the plaintiff pioves a bieach of contiact, theie is a
piesumption that the uefenuant was at fault oi negligent. The buiuen is on the
uefenuant to piove that he was not at fault oi negligent. In contiast, in culpa
aquiliana the plaintiff has the buiuen of pioving that the uefenuant was
negligent. In the piesent case, L.C. Biaz has establisheu that Soliubank bieacheu
its contiactual obligation to ietuin the passbook only to the authoiizeu
iepiesentative of L.C. Biaz. Theie is thus a piesumption that Soliubank was at
fault anu its tellei was negligent in not ietuining the passbook to Calapie. The
buiuen was on Soliubank to piove that theie was no negligence on its pait oi its
employees. But Soliubank faileu to uischaige its buiuen. Soliubank uiu not
piesent to the tiial couit Tellei No. 6, the tellei with whom Calapie left the
passbook anu who was supposeu to ietuin the passbook to him. Soliubank also
faileu to auuuce in eviuence its stanuaiu pioceuuie in veiifying the iuentity of
the peison ietiieving the passbook, if theie is such a pioceuuie, anu that Tellei
No. 6 implementeu this pioceuuie in the piesent case.

Soliubank is bounu by the negligence of its employees unuei the piinciple of
iesponueat supeiioi oi commanu iesponsibility. The uefense of exeicising the
iequiieu uiligence in the selection anu supeivision of employees is not a
complete uefense in culpa contiactual, unlike in culpa aquiliana. The bank must
not only exeicise "high stanuaius of integiity anu peifoimance," it must also
insuie that its employees uo likewise because this is the only way to insuie that
the bank will comply with its fiuuciaiy uuty

<8;I4:#%* A#)&* ;T %6* B5#)%6;84]*- /4%6-8#U#,
L.C. Biaz was not at fault that the passbook lanueu in the hanus of the impostoi.
Soliubank was in possession of the passbook while it was piocessing the
ueposit. Aftei completion of the tiansaction, Soliubank hau the contiactual
obligation to ietuin the passbook only to Calapie, the authoiizeu iepiesentative
of L.C. Biaz. Soliubank faileu to fulfill its contiactual obligation because it gave
the passbook to anothei peison.

Bau the passbook not fallen into the hanus of the impostoi, the loss of PSuu,uuu
woulu not have happeneu. Thus, the pioximate cause of the unauthoiizeu
withuiawal was Soliubank's negligence in not ietuining the passbook to
Calapie.

9;$%845* ;T G#&% A,*#8 A6#5$*
/* -; 5;% #77,N %6* -;$%845* ;T ,#&% $,*#8 $6#5$* %; %6* 78*&*5% $#&*M @64&
4& # $#&* ;T $),7# $;5%8#$%)#,3 U6*8* 5*4%6*8 %6* $;5%84O)%;8N 5*Q,4Q*5$* ;T
%6* 7,#45%4TT 5;8 64& ,#&% $,*#8 $6#5$* %; #L;4- %6* ,;&&3 U;),- *I;5*8#%*
%6* -*T*5-#5% T8;: ,4#O4,4%NM Such contiibutoiy negligence oi last cleai chance
by the plaintiff meiely seives to ieuuce the iecoveiy of uamages by the plaintiff
but uoes not exculpate the uefenuant fiom his bieach of contiact

)&'*%I%-*( ." $< = ?1%-7
Febiuaiy 6, 1991
NEBIALBEA, }
FACTS:

Apiil 2u, 198S 6:Su am: a collision occuiieu between a 1947 mouel giavel anu sanu tiuck
uiiven by Nontesiano anu owneu by Bel Pilai anu a Nazuapassengei bus uiiven Susulin
along the national ioau at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite fiont left siue poition (baianuilla) of
the bouy of the tiuck siueswipeu the left siue wall of the passengei bus, iipping off the
wall fiom the uiivei's seat to the last ieai seat seveial passengeis of the bus weie
thiown out anu uieu as a iesult of the injuiies they sustaineu:
1. Rogelio Bustamante, 4u, husbanu of Emma Auiiano Bustamante anu fathei of Rossel,
uloiia, Yolanua, Eiicson, anu Eueiic, all suinameu Bustamante;
2. Naiia Coiazon }ocson, 16, uaughtei of spouses Salvauoi anu Patiia }ocson;
S. }olet C. Ramos, 16, uaughtei of spouses }ose anu Eniiqueta Ramos;
4. Eniico Bimaya, 18, son of spouses Naiciso anu Auoiacion Bimaya; anu
S. Noel Beisamina, 17, son of spouses }ose anu Na. Commemoiacion Beisamina

The bus was iegisteieu in the name of Novelo but was owneu anuoi opeiateu as a
passengei bus jointly by Nagtibay anu Seiiauo befoie the collision, the caigo tiuck anu
the passengei bus weie appioaching each othei, coming fiom the opposite uiiections of
the highway. While the tiuck was still about Su meteis away, Susulin, the bus uiivei, saw
the fiont wheels of the vehicle wiggling. Be also obseiveu that the tiuck was heauing
towaius his lane. Not minuing this ciicumstance uue to his belief that the uiivei of the
tiuck was meiely joking, Susulin shifteu fiom fouith to thiiu geai in oiuei to give moie
powei anu speeu to the bus, which was ascenuing the inclineu pait of the ioau, in oiuei
to oveitake oi pass a Kubota hanu tiactoi being pusheu by a peison along the shouluei
of the highway
RTC: liability of the two uiiveis foi theii negligence must be soliuaiy
CA: ownei anu uiivei of the sanu anu giavel tiuck appealeu was gianteu

ISS0E: WN the last cleai chance can apply making the bus negligent in failing to avoiu
the collision anu his act in pioceeuing to oveitake the hanu tiactoi was the pioximate
cause of the collision making him solely liable

BELB: N0. Petition is gianteu. CA ieveiseu.
the uoctiine of last cleai chance means that even though a peison's own acts
may have placeu him in a position of peiil, anu an injuiy iesults, the injuieu
peison is entitleu to iecoveiy.

a peison who has the last cleai chance oi oppoitunity of avoiuing an acciuent,
notwithstanuing the negligent acts of his opponent oi that of a thiiu peison
imputeu to the opponent is consiueieu in law solely iesponsible foi the
consequences of the acciuent.

since the case at bai is not a suit between the owneis anu uiiveis of the
colliuing vehicles but a suit biought by the heiis of the ueceaseu passengeis
against both owneis anu uiiveis of the colliuing vehicles the couit eiieu in
absolving the ownei anu uiivei of the caigo tiuck fiom liability


:%-*5%-+4 ." )%('% 2 O(P%-4

FACTS:
Spouses Baesa, theii 4 chiluien, the Ico spouses anu theii son anu 7 othei
people boaiueu a passengei jeep uiiven by Baviu Ico to go to a picnic in Isabela,
to celebiate the Sth weuuing anniveisaiy of the Baesa spouses
While they weie pioceeuing towaius Nalalam Rivei at a speeu of about 2u kph,
a speeuing PANTRANC0 bus fiom Apaiii, on a ioute to Nanila, encioacheu on
the jeepney's lane while negotiating a cuive, anu colliueu with it.
As a iesult, the entiie Baesa family, except foi theii uaughtei Naiicai Baesa, as
well as Baviu Ico, uieu, anu the iest suffeieu fiom injuiies. Naiicai Baesa,
thiough hei guaiuian fileu sepaiate actions foi uamages aiising fiom quasi-
uelict against PANTRANC0.
PANTRANC0: allegeu Baviu Ico's negligence as a pioximate cause of the
acciuent anu invokeu the uefense of uue uiligence in the selection anu
supeivision of its uiivei.
CA uphelu RTC: favoi of Baesa

ISS0E: WN the last cleai chance applies theieby making Baviu Ico who hau the
chance to avoiu the collision negligent in failing to utilize with ieasonable caie
anu competence

BELB: N0.
ueneially, the last cleai change uoctiine is invokeu foi the puipose of making a
uefenuant liable to a plaintiff who was guilty of piioi oi anteceuent negligence,
although it may also be iaiseu as a uefense to uefeat claim foi uamages

The uoctiine of the last cleai chance simply, means that the negligence of a
claimant uoes not piecluue a iecoveiy foi the negligence of uefenuant wheie it
appeais that the lattei, by exeicising ieasonable caie anu piuuence, might have
avoiueu injuiious consequences to claimant notwithstanuing his negligence.

This uoctiine applies only in a situation wheie the plaintiff was guilty of piioi oi
anteceuent negligence but the uefenuant, who hau the last faii chance to avoiu
the impenuing haim anu faileu to uo so, is maue liable foi all the consequences
of the acciuent notwithstanuing the piioi negligence of the plaintiff. The
subsequent negligence of the uefenuant in failing to exeicise oiuinaiy caie to
avoiu injuiy to plaintiff becomes the immeuiate oi pioximate cause of the
acciuent which inteivenes between the acciuent anu the moie iemote
negligence of the plaintiff, thus making the uefenuant liable to the plaintiff.

Foi the last cleai chance uoctiine to apply, it is necessaiy to show that the
peison who allegeuly has the last oppoitunity to aveit the acciuent was awaie
of the existence of the peiil, oi shoulu, with exeicise of uue caie, have been
awaie of it

theie is nothing to show that the jeepney uiivei Baviu Ico knew of the
impenuing uangei. When he saw at a uistance that the appioaching bus was
encioaching on his lane, he uiu not immeuiately sweive the jeepney to the uiit
shouluei on his iight since he must have assumeu that the bus uiivei will ietuin
the bus to its own lane upon seeing the jeepney appioaching foim the opposite
uiiection.

Even assuming that the jeepney uiivei peiceiveu the uangei a few seconus
befoie the actual collision, he hau no oppoitunity to avoiu it last cleai chance
uoctiine can nevei apply wheie the paity chaigeu is iequiieu to act
instantaneously, anu if the injuiy cannot be avoiueu by the application of all
means at hanu aftei the peiil is oi shoulu have been uiscoveieu

9-7%0% ." $< 2 O14-7+4
Quisumbing, 2uuS
Facts
Euwin Iian was uiiving a Tamaiaw with Sheila Seyan, the ownei. They
saw a pickup tiuck moving fiom a hilly giauient, fiom the opposite
uiiection. The pickup tiuck was uiiven by Engaua. When the tiuck was
just a few meteis away, it flasheu its iight signal light then sweiveu left,
ENCR0ACBINu Iian's lane. To avoiu the tiuck, Iian sweiveu left. At the
last minute, the tiuck again sweiveu to its iight lane, iesulting in a
collision. Iian anu Seyan weie injuieu.
A ciiminal case foi uamage to piopeity thiough ieckless impiuuence
with seiious physical injuiies was fileu. The RTC founu Engaua guilty,
anu the CA affiimeu, finuing the pioximate cause of the acciuent the fact
that Engaua was in the wiong siue of the lane.
Engaua's uefense: that Iian's sweiving was the cause of the acciuent,
anu that when Engaua flasheu his signal light, sufficient notice was
given to Iian to ietuin to his lane, anu that this constituteu an
inteivening event which maue Engaua's actions not the pioximate
cause.
Issue
W0N Engaua's actions weie the pioximate cause of the acciuent, anu
whethei the uoctiine of last cleai chance may be applieu in Engaua's
uefense. N0, N0.
R0LINu
The Couit applieu the Emeigency Rule. A peison who is confionteu
with a suuuen emeigency might have no time foi thought, anu he must
make a piompt uecision baseu laigely upon impulse oi instinct.
Petitionei's acts put Iian in an emeigency situation, anu an inuiviuual
placeu in an emeigency anu iequiieu to act fast may not be helu guilty
of negligence if he fails to unueitake what subsequently anu upon
ieflection may appeai to be a bettei solution, unless the emeigency was
biought by his own negligence.
The uoctiine of last cleai chance is not applicable unuei the emeigency
iule because in effect theie is no last cleai chance oi oppoitunity foi the
plaintiff to escape the acciuent.
Acts of Engaua which shows that theie was an emeigency situation: the
fast speeu, the last minute changing of lanes. This iequiieu Iian to make
a quick uecision.
Casis notes: the Couit hau no pioblem applying the uoctiine of last
cleai chance to ciiminal cases, although in this case the uoctiine was
baiieu because of the emeigency iule. This case is an instance wheie
the uoctiine of last cleai chance cannot be applieu.