98Rakesv.Atlantic,GulfandPacificCo.

|TraceyJanuray23,1907
FACTS

PlaintiffRakeswasoneofthelaborersofdefendant,transporting
ironrailsfromthebargeintheharbortodefendantsyard.Piledlengthwiseon2
handcarswere7railssuchthattheendsoftherailsprotrudedbeyondthecars.
Therailslayupon2crosspiecesorsillssecuredtothecarsbutwithoutsideguards
topreventthemfromslippingoff.Nearthewatersedge,thetrackssagged,thetie
broke,therailsslidoffandcaughtplaintiff,resultinginabrokenlegwhichwas
subsequentlyamputated.

Plaintiffallegesthatdefendantwasnegligentinnotprovidedside
guardsonthecars,andthatthetrackshadnofishplates.Defendantadmitted
absenceofsideguardsandfailedtoeffectivelyovercometheplaintiffsproofthat
nofishplatesexisted.

Thesaggingofthetrackswasfoundtohavebeencausedbythe
waterofthebayraisedbyarecenttyphoon.Itwasntprovedthatthecompany
inspectedthetrackafterthetyphoonorthatithadanypropersystemofinspecting.
ISSUE&ARGUMENTS
W/Nplaintiffwasguiltyofcontributorynegligencetoexoneratedefendantfrom
liability.
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
No.

Theallegationthatplaintiffwasatfaultforcontinuinghisworkdespitenoticeofthe
saggingofthetrackconstitutedcontributorynegligencethatexoneratedefendantis
untenable.Nothingintheevidenceshowsthatplaintiffdidorcouldseethedisplaced
timberunderneath.Plaintiffhadworkedonthejobforlessthantwodays.
Whereplaintiffcontributedtotheprincipaloccurrence,asoneofthedeterminingfactors,
hecannotrecover.Where,inconjunctionwiththeoccurrence,hecontributesonlytohis
owninjury,hemayrecovertheamountthatthedefendantresponsiblefortheevent
shouldpayforsuchinjury,lessthesumdeemedasuitableequivalentforhisown
imprudence

TAYLOR

September 30, 1905 Sunday

afternoon: David Taylor, 15 years of age, the son of a
mechanical engineer, more mature than the average
boy of his age, and having considerable aptitude and
training in mechanics with a boy named Manuel
Claparols, about 12 years of age, crossed the
footbridge to the Isla del Provisor, for the purpose of
visiting Murphy, an employee of the defendant, who
and promised to make them a cylinder for a
miniature engine
After leaving the power house where they
had asked for Mr. Murphy, they walked across the
open space in the neighborhood of the place where
the company dumped in the cinders and ashes from
its furnaces
they found some twenty or thirty brass
fulminating caps scattered on the ground
These caps are approximately of
the size and appearance of small pistol
cartridges and each has attached to it 2
long thin wires by means of which it may be
discharged by the use of electricity
They are intended for use in the
explosion of blasting charges of dynamite,
and have in themselves a considerable
explosive power
the boys picked up all they could find, hung
them on stick, of which each took end, and carried
them home
After crossing the footbridge, they met
Jessie Adrian, less than 9 years old, and they

went to Manuel's home

The boys then made a series of experiments
with the caps
trust the ends of the wires into an
electric light socket - no result
break the cap with a stone - failed
opened one of the caps with a knife,
and finding that it was filled with a yellowish
substance they got matches
David held the cap while Manuel
applied a lighted match to the contents
An explosion followed, causing
more or less serious injuries to all three
Jessie, who when the boys
proposed putting a match to the
contents of the cap, became
frightened and started to run away,
received a slight cut in the neck
Manuel had his hand
burned and wounded
David was struck in the
face by several particles of the
metal capsule, one of which injured
his right eye to such an extent as
to the necessitate its removal by
the surgeons
Trial Court: held Manila Electric Railroad And
Light Company liable
ISSUE:
1. W/N the elemnents of quasi-delict to make Manila
Electric Railroad And Light Company liable - NO
2. W/N Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.

sufficiently proved that they employed all the diligence of

a good father of a family to avoid the damage - NO

No.Theimmediatecauseoftheexplosion,theaccidentwhich
resultedinplaintiff'sinjury,wasinhisownactinputtingamatchtothecontents
ofthecap,andthathaving"contributedtotheprincipaloccurrence,asoneofits
determiningfactors,hecannotrecover."

Inthecaseatbar,plaintiffatthetimeoftheaccidentwasawell
grownyouthof15,morematurebothmentallyandphysicallythantheaverage
boyofhisage;hehadbeentoseaasacabinboy;wasabletoearnP2.50adayasa
mechanicaldraftsmanthirtydaysaftertheinjurywasincurred;andtherecord
disclosesthroughoutthathewasexceptionallywellqualifiedtotakecareof
himself.Theevidenceofrecordleavesnoroomfordoubtthat,despitehisdenials
onthewitnessstand,hewellknewtheexplosivecharacterofthecapwithwhich
hewasamusinghimself.Theseriesofexperimentsmadebyhiminhisattemptto
produceanexplosion,asdescribedbythelittlegirlwhowaspresent,admitofno
otherexplanation.Hisattempttodischargethecapbytheuseofelectricity,
followedbyhiseffortstoexplodeitwithastoneorahammer,andthefinal
successofhisendeavorsbroughtaboutbytheapplicationofamatchtothe
contentsofthecaps,showclearlythatheknewwhathewasabout.Norcanthere
beanyreasonabledoubtthathehadreasontoanticipatethattheexplosionmight
bedangerous,inviewofthefactthatthelittlegirl,9yearsofage,whowaswithin
himatthetimewhenheputthematchtothecontentsofthecap,became
frightenedandranaway.

True,hemaynothaveknownandprobablydidnotknowtheprecise
natureoftheexplosionwhichmightbeexpectedfromtheignitionofthecontents
ofthecap,andofcoursehedidnotanticipatetheresultantinjurieswhichhe
incurred;buthewellknewthatamoreorlessdangerousexplosionmightbe
expectedfromhisact,andyethewillfully,recklessly,andknowinglyproduced
theexplosion.Itwouldbegoingfartosaythat"accordingtohismaturityand
capacity"heexercisedsuchand"careandcaution"asmightreasonablybe
requiredofhim,orthatdefendantoranyoneelseshouldbeheldcivillyresponsible
forinjuriesincurredbyhimundersuchcircumstances.

Thelawfixesnoarbitraryageatwhichaminorcanbesaidtohave
thenecessarycapacitytounderstandandappreciatethenatureandconsequences
ofhisownacts,soastomakeitnegligenceonhisparttofailtoexerciseduecare
andprecautioninthecommissionofsuchacts;andindeeditwouldbe
impracticableandperhapsimpossiblesotodo,forintheverynatureofthings

thequestionofnegligencenecessarilydependsontheabilityoftheminortounderstand
thecharacterofhisownactsandtheirconsequences;andtheageatwhichaminorcanbe
saidtohavesuchabilitywillnecessarilydependsofhisownactsandtheirconsequences;
andattheageatwhichaminorcanbesaidtohavesuchabilitywillnecessarilyvaryin
accordancewiththevaryingnatureoftheinfinitevarietyofactswhichmaybedoneby
him.

Estacionvs.Bernardo|AustriaMartinez
G.R.No.144723,February27,2006|483SCRA222
FACTS

October16,1982,afternoon,RespondentNoewasgoinghometo
DumaguetefromCebu.HeboardedaFordFierajeepneydrivenbyGeminiano
Quinquillera(Quinquillera)andownedbyCeciliaBandoquillo(Bandoquillo).

Hewasseatedontheextensionseatatthecenterofthefiera.

FromSanJose,anoldwomanwantedtoridesoNoeofferedhisseat

and
hung/stoodontheleftrearcarrierofthevehicle(sumabit)

Thefierasloweddownandstoppedtopickupmorepassengers.

Suddenly,anIsuzucargotruckownedbypetitionerEstacionand
drivenby
Gerosano,whichwastravellinginthesamedirection,hittherearportionofthe
jeepney.

ThefieracrushedNoeslegsandfeet,hewasbroughttoSiliman
UnivMedCenter
wherehislowerleftlegwasamputated.

Policereportshowedthattherewere10morewhowereinjuredby
theaccident.

Feb18,1993,NowandhisguardianadlitemArlieBernardofiledw
theRTCof
Dumagueteacomplaintfordamagesarisingfromquasidelictagainstpetitioneras
ownerofthetruckandhisdriver.


RTCruledthatGerosanowasnegligentanditwasthedirectand
proximatecauseof
theincident.Italsoheldpetitionerliableasemployer.

CAaffirmedintototheRTC.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS

W/NPetitionerisliable?

W/NNoewasguiltyofcontributorynegligence?
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
YES.

Fromthewaythetruckreactedtotheapplicationofthebrakes,itcan
beshownthatGerosanowasdrivingatafastspeedbecausethebrakesskiddeda
lengthy48feetasshowninhesketchofthepolice.

Therewasalsoonlyonetiremarkwhichmeantthatthebrakesofthe
truckwerenotalignedproperly,otherwise,therewouldhavebeen2tiremarks.

Itisthenegligentactofpetitionersdriverofdrivingthecargotruck
atafastspeedcoupledwithfaultybrakeswhichwastheproximatecauseof
respondentNoesinjury.

AsemployerofGerosano,petitionerisprimarilyandsolidarilyliable
forthequasidelictcommittedbytheformer.Heispresumedtobenegligentin
theselectionofhisemployeewhichpetitionerfailedtoovercome.

HefailedtoshowthatheexamineddriverGerosanoastohis
qualifications,experienceandrecords.
YES.NOEISGUILTYOFCONTRIBUTORYNEGLIGENCEBYSTANDING
ATTHEREARPORTIONOFTHEJEEP.

ContributoryNegligenceisconductonthepartoftheinjuredparty,
contributingas
alegalcausetotheharmhehassuffered,whichfallsbelowthestandardtowhich
he
isrequiredtoconformforhisownprotection.

Noesactofstandingontheleftrearportionshowedhislackof
ordinarycareand

foresightthatsuchactcouldcausehimharmorputhislifeindanger.

Toholdapersonashavingcontributedtohisinjuries,itmustbe
shownthatheperformedanactthatbroughtabouthisinjuriesindisregardof
warningorsignsof
animpendingdangertohealthandbody.

Quinquillera(jeepneydriver)wasalsonegligentbecausetherewas
overloading
whichisinviolationoftrafficrulesandregulations.HealsoallowedNoetostand
ontheleftrearofhisjeep.

Thereisalsoapresumptionofnegligenceonthepartoftheownerof
thejeep,Bandoquillo,whichshedidnotrebut.

2080ratiodistributionofdamages.

Cadientevs.Macas|QuisumbingG.R.No.161946,November14,2008|
FACTS

AttheintersectionofBuhanginandSanVicenteStreets,respondent
BithuelMacas,a15yearoldhighschoolstudent,wasstandingontheshoulderof
theroad.

HewasbumpedandranoverbyaFordFiera,drivenbyChona
Cimafranca.CimafrancathenrushedMacastotheDavaoMedicalCenter.

Mathassufferedseveremuscularandmajorvesselinjuriesinboth
thighsandotherpartsofhislegs.Inordertosavehislife,thesurgeonhadto
amputatebothlegsuptothegroins.

Cimafrancahadsinceabscondedanddisappeared.However,records
showedthattheFordFierawasregisteredinthenameofAtty.Medardo
Cadiente.

Cadienteclaimedthatwhentheaccidenthappened,hewasnolonger

theownerofthesaidFordFiera.HeallegedlysoldittoEngr.Jalipa.

Macasfatherfiledacomplaintfortortsanddamagesagainst
CimafrancaandCadiente.

TrialcourtruledinfavorofMacas.AffirmedbytheCA.

ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NtherewascontributorynegligenceonthepartofMacas?HOLDING&
RATIODECIDENDI
NO.

Theunderlyingpreceptoncontributorynegligenceisthataplaintiff
whoispartlyresponsibleforhisowninjuryshouldnotbeentitledtorecover
damagesinfull,butmustproportionatelybeartheconsequencesofhisown
negligence.Thedefendantisthusheldliableonlyforthedamagesactuallycaused
byhisnegligence.

Inthiscase,whentheaccidenthappened,Macaswasstandingon
theshoulder,whichwastheuncementedportionofthehighway.Theshoulder
wasintendedforpedestrianuse.Onlystationaryvehicles,suchasthoseloading
orunloadingpassengersmayusetheshoulder.Runningvehiclesarenotsupposed
topassthroughthesaiduncementedportionofthehighway.

However,theFordFierainthiscase,withoutsomuchasslowing
down,tookofffromthecementedpartofthehighway,inexplicablyswervedto
theshoulder,andrecklesslybumpedandranoveraninnocentvictim.Macas
wasjustwhereheshouldbewhentheunfortunateeventtranspired.
CADIENTESTILLLIABLE.
SincetheFordFierawasstillregisteredinthepetitionersnameatthetimethe
misfortunetookplace,Cadientecannotescapeliabilityforthepermanentinjuryitcaused
therespondent.

NPCvHeirsofCasionan
GR165969,November272008

FACTS

AtrailleadingtoSangilo,Itogon,existedinDalicnoandthistrail
wasregularlyusedbymembersofthecommunity.Sometimeinthe1970s,
petitionerNPCinstalledhightensionelectricaltransmissionlinesof69
kilovolts(KV)traversingthetrail.
o Eventually,someofthetransmissionlinessaggedanddangledreducingtheir
distancefromthegroundtoonlyabouteighttotenfeet.Thisposedagreatthreat
topassersbywhowereexposedtothedangerofelectrocutionespeciallyduringthe
wetseason.

Asearlyas1991,theleadersofAmpucao,Itogonmadeverbaland
writtenrequestsforNPCtoinstitutesafetymeasurestoprotectusersofthe
trailfromtheirhightensionwires.OnJune18,1991andFebruary11,1993,
PabloandPedroNgaosie,eldersofthecommunity,wroteEngr.PaternoBanayot,
AreaManagerofNPC,tomakeimmediateandappropriaterepairsofthehigh
tensionwires.

OnJune27,1995,Nobleandhiscopocketminer,MelchorJimenez,
wereatDalicno.Theycuttwobamboopolesfortheirpocketmining.Onewas18
to19feetlongandtheotherwas14feetlong.Eachmancarriedonepole
horizontallyonhisshoulder

AsNoblewasgoinguphillandturningleftonacurve,thetipofthe
bamboopolehewascarryingtouchedoneofthedanglinghightensionwires.
o Melchor,whowaswalkingbehindhim,narratedthatheheardabuzzingsound
whenthetipofNoblespoletouchedthewireforonlyaboutoneortwoseconds.
Thereafter,hesawNoblefalltotheground.MelchorrushedtoNobleandshook
himbutthelatterwasalreadydead.TheircoworkersheardMelchorsshoutfor
helpandtogethertheybroughtthebodyofNobletotheircamp.
Consequently,theheirsofthedeceasedNoblefiledaclaimfordamagesagainstthe
NPCbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)inBenguet.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
Wastherecontributorynegligenceonthepartofthevictim?
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
Yes


violationoftherequireddistanceof18to20feet.Ifthetransmissionlineswere
properlymaintainedbypetitioner,thebamboopolecarriedbyNoblewouldnot
havetouchedthewires.Hewouldnothavebeenelectrocuted.
Negligenceisthefailuretoobserve,fortheprotectionoftheinterestofanotherperson,
thatdegreeofcare,precaution,andvigilancewhichthecircumstancesjustlydemand,
wherebysuchotherpersonsuffersinjury.Ontheotherhand,contributorynegligenceis
conductonthepartoftheinjuredparty,contributingasalegalcausetotheharm
hehassuffered,whichfallsbelowthestandardwhichheisrequiredtoconformfor
hisownprotection.
o Theunderlyingpreceptoncontributorynegligenceisthataplaintiffwhoispartly
responsibleforhisowninjuryshouldnotbeentitledtorecoverdamagesinfullbutmust
beartheconsequencesofhisownnegligence.15Ifindeedtherewascontributory
negligenceonthepartofthevictim,thenitispropertoreducetheawardfordamages.
Inthiscase,thetrailwhereNoblewaselectrocutedwasregularlyusedbymembersofthe
community.Therewerenowarningsignstoinformpassersbyoftheimpending
dangertotheirlivesshouldtheyaccidentallytouchthehightensionwires.Also,the
trailwastheonlyviablewayfromDalicontoItogon.Hence,Nobleshouldnotbe
faultedforsimplydoingwhatwasordinaryroutinetootherworkersinthearea.

Afialdav.Hisole|Reyes
No.L2075November29,1949|85Phil.67
FACTS

SpousesHisolehiredLoretoAfialdaascaretakeroftheformers
carabaosatafixedcompensation.

WhileLoretowastendingthecarabaos,hewasgoredbyoneofthem
anddiedasaresult.Loretoseldersister,MargaritaAfialda,nowsuesspouses
HisoleasLoretosdependantandheir.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NthespousesHisoleareliableforthedeathoftheircaretaker,Loreto
Afialda.
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI

NO,THEYARENOTLIABLE.
Theanimalwasinthecustodyandunderthecontrolofthecaretaker,whowaspaidfor
hisworkassuch.Obviously,itwasthecaretakersbusinesstotrytopreventtheanimal
fromcausinginjuryordamagetoanyone,includinghimself.Andbeinginjuredbythe
animalunderthosecircumstanceswasoneoftherisksoftheoccupationwhichhehad
voluntarilyassumedandforwhichhemusttaketheconsequences.

Ongvs.MetropolitanWaterDistrict|BautistaAngeloL7644August29,1958|
FACTS

Metropolitanowns3swimmingpoolsatitsfiltersinBalara,Quezon

Itchargesthepublicacertainfeeifsuchwantedtouseitspools

City

DominadorOng,14yearsofage,sonofpetitioners,wenttothe
poolsalongwith
his2brothers

Hestayedintheshallowpool,butthenhetoldhisbrothersthathe
wouldget
somethingtodrink.HisbrotherslefthimandwenttotheDeeppool

Around4pmthatday,abatherreportedthatonepersonwas
swimmingtolong
underwater

Uponhearingthis,thelifeguardondutydoveintothepoolto
retrieveOngslifeless
body.Applyingfirstaid,thelifeguardtriedtorevivetheboy.

Soonafter,malenurseArmandoRulecametorenderassistance,
followedby
sanitaryinspectorIluminadoVicentewho,afterbeingcalledbyphonefromthe
clinicbyoneofthesecurityguards,boardedajeepcarryingwithhimthe
resuscitatorandamedicinekit,anduponarrivingheinjectedtheboywith
camphoratedoil.Aftertheinjection,VicenteleftonajeepinordertofetchDr.
AyuyaofromtheUniversityofthePhilippines.Meanwhile,Abaocontinuedthe
artificialmanualrespiration,andwhenthisfailedtorevivehim,theyappliedthe

resuscitatoruntilthetwooxygentankswereexhausted

Investigationwasconcludedandthecauseofdeathisasphyxiaby
submersioninwater(pagkalunod)

TheparentsofOngbringthisactionfordamagesagainst
Metropolitan,allegingnegligenceontheselectionandsupervisionofits
employeesandifnotnegligent,theyhadthelastclearchancetoreviveOng.

ItistobenotedthatMetropolitanhadcompletesafetymeasuresin
place:theyhadamalenurse,sixlifeguards,ringbuoys,toyroof,towingline,
savingkitandaresuscitator.Thereisalsoasanitaryinspectorwhoisinchargeof
aclinicestablishedforthebenefitofthepatrons.Defendanthasalsoondisplayin
aconspicuousplacecertainrulesandregulationsgoverningtheuseofthepools,
oneofwhichprohibitstheswimminginthepoolaloneorwithoutanyattendant.
Althoughdefendantdoesnotmaintainafulltimephysicianintheswimmingpool
compound,ithashoweveranurseandasanitaryinspectorreadytoadminister
injectionsoroperatetheoxygenresuscitatoriftheneedshouldarise
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS

W/NMetropolitanisliabletotheOngsforitsnegligence

W/Nthelastclearchancedoctrinemaybeinvokedinthiscase
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
No.Metropolitanisnotnegligent
Metropolitanhastakenallnecessaryprecautionstoavoiddangertothelivesofits
patrons.Ithasbeenshownthattheswimmingpoolsofappelleeareprovidedwitharing
buoy,toyroof,towingline,oxygenresuscitatorandafirstaidmedicinekit.Thebottom
ofthepoolsispaintedwithblackcolorssoastoinsureclearvisibility.Thereison
displayinaconspicuousplacewithintheareacertainrulesandregulationsgoverningthe
useofthepools.Appelleeemployssixlifeguardswhoarealltrainedastheyhadtakena
courseforthatpurposeandwereissuedcertificatesofproficiency.Theselifeguardswork
onschedulepreparedbytheirchiefandarrangedinsuchawayastohavetwoguardsata
timeondutytolookafterthesafetyofthebathers.Thereisamalenurseandasanitary
inspectorwithaclinicprovidedwithoxygenresuscitator.Andtherearesecurityguards
whoareavailablealwaysincaseofemergency.
TherecordalsoshowsthatwhenthebodyofminorOngwasretrievedfromthebottom
ofthepool,theemployeesofappelleedideverythingpossibletobringhimbacktolife.
Whentheyfoundthatthepulseoftheboywasabnormal,theinspectorimmediately
injectedhimwithcamphoratedoil.Whenthemanualartificialrespirationproved

ineffectivetheyappliedtheoxygenresuscitatoruntilitscontentswereexhausted.And
whilealltheseeffortswerebeingmade,theysentforDr.AyuyaofromtheUniversityof
thePhilippineswhohowevercamelatebecauseuponexaminingthebodyfoundhimto
bealreadydead.Alloftheforegoingshowsthatappelleehasdonewhatishumanly
possibleunderthecircumstancestorestorelifetominorOngandforthatreasonitis
unfairtoholditliableforhisdeath
TheLastClearChanceDoctrineisinapplicableinthiscase

TherecorddoesnotshowhowminorOngcameintothebig
swimmingpool.TheonlythingtherecorddisclosesisthatminorOnginformed
hiselderbrothersthathewasgoingtothelockerroomtodrinkabottleofcokebut
thatfromthattimeonnobodyknewwhathappenedtohimuntilhislifelessbody
wasretrieved.Thedoctrineoflastclearchancesimplymeansthatthenegligence
ofaclaimantdoesnotprecludearecoveryforthenegligenceofdefendantwhereit
appearsthatthelatter,byexercisingreasonablecareandprudence,mighthave
avoidedinjuriousconsequencestoclaimantnotwithstandinghisnegligence

SinceitisnotknownhowminorOngcameintothebigswimming
poolanditbeingapparentthathewenttherewithoutanycompanioninviolation
ofoneoftheregulationsofappelleeasregardstheuseofthepools,andit
appearingthatlifeguardAbaorespondedtothecallforhelpassoonashis
attentionwascalledtoitandimmediatelyafterretrievingthebodyalleffortsatthe
disposalofappelleehadbeenputintoplayinordertobringhimbacktolife,itis
clearthatthereisnoroomfortheapplicationofthedoctrinenowinvokedby
appellantstoimputeliabilitytoappellee.

Anuran,etal.vs.Buno,et.Al.|Bengzon
G.R.Nos.L21353andL21354,May20,1966|17SCRA224
FACTS

AtnoonofJanuary12,1958,apassengerjeepneyownedby
defendantspousesPedroGaholandLuisaAlcantaraanddrivenbydefendant
PepitoBunowasonitsregularroutetravellingformMahabangLudlud,Taal,
Batangastowardsthepoblacionofthesaidmunicipality.Aftercrossingthebridge,
Bunostoppedthejeepneytoallowoneofthepassengerstoalight.Heparkedhis
jeepneyinsuchawaythatonehalfofitswidth(theleftwheels)wasonthe
asphaltedpavementoftheroadandtheotherhalf,ontherightshoulderofthesaid
road.


Thereafteraspeedingwatertruck,ownedbydefendantspouses
AnselmoMaligayaandCeferinaArodrivenbyGuillermoRazon,violently
smashedagainsttheparkedjeepneyfrombehind,causingittoturnturtleintoa
nearbyditch.

Asaresultofthecollision,threeofthejeepneyspassengersdied
withtwootherssufferinginjuries.

Thesuitwasinstitutedbytherepresentativesofthedeadandofthe
injured,torecoverdamagesfromtheownersanddriversofboththetruckandthe
jeepney.

TheBatangasCFIrenderedjudgmentabsolvingthedriverofthe
jeepneyandits
owners.OnappealtotheCA,theappellatecourtaffirmedtheexonerationofthe
jeepneydriverandofitsowners.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/Nthedriverandownersofthejeepneyshouldalsobemadeliable?W/N
theLastClearChanceprincipleisapplicable?
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
YES,THEJEEPNEYOWNERSANDDRIVERAREALSOLIABLE
TheobligationofthecarriertotransportitspassengerssafelyissuchthattheCivil
Coderequiresutmostdiligencefromthecarrierswhoarepresumedtohavebeenat
faultoftohaveactednegligently,unlesstheyprovethattheyhaveobserved
extraordinarydiligence.Thedriverofthejeepneywasatfaultfoparkingthevehicle
improperly.
NO,THELASTCLEARCHANCEPRINCIPLEISNOTAPPLICABLE
Theprincipleaboutthelastclearchancewouldcallforapplicationinasuitbetween
theownersanddriversofthetwocollidingvehicles.Itdoesnotarisewherea
passengerdemandsresponsibilityfromthecarriertoenforceitscontractual
obligations.Foritwouldbeinequitabletoexemptthenegligentdriver
ofthejeepneyanditsownersonthegroundthattheotherdriverwaslikewiseguiltyof
negligence.

GlanPeoplesLumberandHardwarevsNLRC|NARVASAG.R.No.70493May18,
1989|

FACTS

EngineerOrlandoCalibo,AgripinoRoranesandMaximoPatoswere
onthejeepownedbytheBacnotanConsolidatedIndustriesInc.

CalibowasdrivingthecarastheywereapproachingtheLizada
BridgetowardsthedirectiongoingtoDavaoCity.

Ataboutthattime,PaulZacariaswasdrivingatruckloadedwith
cargo.Thetruckjustcrossedthesaidbridgecomingfromtheoppositedirectionof
DavaoCityandboundforGlan,SouthCotabato.

Atabout59yardsaftercrossingthebridge,thejeepandthetruck
collidedandasaconsequenceofwhichCalibodiedwhileRoranesandPatos
sustainedphysicalinjuries.Zacariaswasunhurt.

AcivilsuitwasfiledbythewifeofCaliboagainstZacariasandthe
ownerofthetruck

Atthelowercourt,thecasewasdismissedfortheplaintifffailedto
establishthenegligencebypreponderanceofevidence.Thecourthighlightedthat
momentsbeforethecollision,thejeepwaszigzagging.

Zacariasimmediatelysubmittedhimselftopoliceinvestigationwhile
RoranesandPatosrefusedtobeinvestigated.Zacariaspresentedmorecredible
testimonyunlikeRoranesandPatos.

Theevidenceshowedthatthepathofthetruckhadskidmarkswhich
indicatedthatthedriverappliedbrakes.Thecourtacceptedtheevidencethateven
iftherewasnegligenceonthepartofZacariaswhointrudedabout25centimeters
tothelaneofCalibo,thelatterstillhadthelastclearchancetoavoidtheaccident.

TheCourtofAppealsreversedthedecisionandruledinfavorofthe
plaintiff.ThswasonthegroundsthatZacariassawthejeepalreadyatabout150
metersandZacariasdidnothaveadriverslicenseatthetimeoftheincident.The
AppellateCourtopinedthatZacariasnegligencegaverisetothepresumptionof
negligenceonthepartofhisemployerandtheirliabilityisbothprimaryand
solidary.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
WhetherZacariasshouldhaveanactionableresponsibilityfortheaccidentunder
theruleoflastclearchance.
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI

No.
TheevidenceindicatesthatitwasratherEngineerCalibosnegligencethatwasthe
proximatecauseoftheaccident.Assumingtherewasanantecedentnegligenceon

thepartofZacarias,thephysicalfactswouldstillabsolvehimofanyactionable
responsibilityundertheruleofthelastclearchance.
Fromtheestablishedfacts,thelogicalconclusionemergesthatthedriverofthejeephas
theclearchancetoavoidtheaccident.
Therespondentshaveadmittedthatthetruckwasalreadyatafullstopwhenthejeep
plowedintoit.Andtheyhavenotseenfittodenyorimpugnpetitionersimputationthat
theyalsoadmittedthetruckhadbeenbroughttoastopwhilethejeepwasstill30meters
away.Fromthesefactsthelogicalconclusionemergesthatthedriverofthejeephad
whatjudicialdoctrinehasappropriatelycalledthelastclearchancetoavoidthe
accident.Whilestillatthatdistanceofthirtymetersfromthetruck,bystoppinginhis
turnorswervinghisjeepawayfromthetruck,eitherofwhichthedriverofthejeephad
sufficienttimetodowhilerunningat30kilometersperhour.
Inthosecircumstances,hisdutywastoseizethatopportunityofavoidance,notmerely
relyonasupposedrighttoexpect,astheappellatecourtwouldhaveit,thetruckto
swerveandleavehiminaclearpath.
Thedoctrineofthelastclearchanceprovidesasavalidandcompletedefensetoaccident
liabilitytodayasitdidwheninvokedandappliedinthe1918caseofPicartvsSmith.

PantrancoNorthExpress,IncvsBaesa|CortesG.R.Nos.7905051|November14,
1989
FACTS

ThespousesBaesa,theirfourchildren,theIcospouses,thelatters
sonand7otherpeopleboardedapassengerjeeptogotoapicnicinIsabela,to
celebratethe5thweddinganniversaryoftheBaesaspouses.Thejeepwasdriven
byDavidIco.

Uponreachingthehighway,thejeepturnedrightandproceededto
MalalamRiverataspeedofabout20kph.Whiletheywereproceedingtowards
MalalamRiver,aspeedingPANTRANCObusfromAparri,onitsregularrouteto

Manila,encroachedonthejeepneyslanewhilenegotiatingacurve,andcollided
withit.

Asaresult,theentireBaesafamily,exceptforonedaughter,aswell
asDavidIco,died,andtherestsufferedfrominjuries.MaricarBaesa,the
survivingdaughter,throughherguardianfiledseparateactionsfordamages
arisingfromquasidelictagainstPANTRANCO.

PANTRANCO,asidefrompointingtothelateDavidIcos(the
driver)allegednegligenceasaproximatecauseoftheaccident,invokedthe
defenseofduediligenceintheselectionandsupervisionofitsdriver.TheRTC
ruledinfavorofBaesa,whichwasupheldbytheCA

ThepetitionernowcontendsthattheCAerredinnotapplyingthe
doctrineofthelastclearchanceagainstthejeepneydriver.Petitionercontends
thatunderthecircumstances,itwasthedriverofthejeepwhohadthelastclear
chancetoavoidthecollisionandwasthereforenegligentinfailingtoutilizewith
reasonablecareandcompetencehisthenexistingopportunitytoavoidtheharm.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
Doesthelastclearchancedoctrineapply?HOLDING&RATIO
DECIDENDI
No.

Thedoctrineappliesonlyinasituationwheretheplaintiffwasguilty
ofaprior
orantecedentnegligencebutthedefendant,whohadthelastfairchancetoavoid
theimpendingharmandfailedtodoso,ismadeliableforalltheconsequences

Generally,thelastclearchangedoctrineisinvokedforthepurpose
ofmakingadefendantliabletoaplaintiffwhowasguiltyofpriororantecedent
negligence,althoughitmayalsoberaisedasadefensetodefeatclaimfor
damages.

Itisthepetitionerspositionthatevenassumingarguendo,thatthe
busencroachedintothelaneofthejeepney,thedriverofthelattercouldhave
swervedthejeepneytowardsthespaciousdirtshoulderonhisrightwithoutdanger
tohimselforhispassengers.Thisisuntenable
Forthelastclearchancedoctrinetoapply,itisnecessarytoshowthatthepersonwho
allegedlyhasthelastopportunitytoaverttheaccidentwasawareoftheexistenceofthe
peril,orshould,withexerciseofduecare,havebeenawareofit.Onecannotbeexpected
toavoidanaccidentorinjuryifhedoesnotknoworcouldnothaveknowntheexistence

oftheperil.
Inthiscase,thereisnothingtoshowthatthejeepneydriverDavidIcoknewofthe
impendingdanger.Whenhesawatadistancethattheapproachingbuswasencroaching
onhislane,hedidnotimmediatelyswervethejeepneytothedirtshoulderonhisright
sincehemusthaveassumedthatthebusdriverwillreturnthebustoitsownlaneupon
seeingthejeepneyapproachingformtheoppositedirection.
Evenassumingthatthejeepneydriverperceivedthedangerafewsecondsbeforethe
actualcollision,hehadnoopportunitytoavoidit.TheCourthasheldthatthelastclear
chancedoctrinecanneverapplywherethepartychargedisrequiredtoact
instantaneously,andiftheinjurycannotbeavoidedbytheapplicationofallmeansat
handaftertheperilisorshouldhavebeendiscovered.

GeorgeMckeeandAraceliKohMckeevs.IAC,JaimeTayagandRosalinda
manalo|Davide
G.R.No.L68102,July16,1992|211SCRA517
FACTS

Between9and10o'clockinthemorningofJanuary1977,inPulong
PuloBridgealongMacArthurHighway,betweenAngelesCityandSanFernando,
Pampanga,aheadoncollisiontookplacebetweenanInternationalcargotruck,
Loadstar,ownedbyTayagandManalo,drivenbyGalang,andaFordEscortcar
drivenbyJoseKoh,resultinginthedeathsofJoseKoh,KimKohMcKeeand
LoidaBondoc,andphysicalinjuriestoGeorgeKohMcKee,ChristopherKoh
McKeeandAraceliKohMcKee,allpassengersoftheFordEscort

Immediatelybeforethecollision,thecargotruck,whichwasloaded
with200cavansofriceweighingabout10,000kilos,wastravelingsouthward
fromAngelesCitytoSanFernandoPampanga,andwasboundforManila.The
FordEscort,ontheotherhand,wasonitswaytoAngelesCityfromSanFernando

WhentheFordEscortwasabout10metersawayfromthesouthern
approachofthebridge,2boyssuddenlydartedfromtherightsideoftheroad
andintothelaneofthecarmovingbackandforth,unsureofwhethertocrossall
thewaytotheothersideorturnback

JoseKohblewthehornofthecar,swervedtotheleftandenteredthe
laneofthetruck;hethenswitchedontheheadlightsofthecar,appliedthebrakes

andthereafterattemptedtoreturntohislane.Butbeforehecoulddoso,hiscar
collidedwiththetruck.Thecollisionoccurredinthelaneofthetruck,whichwas
theoppositelane,onthesaidbridge

Asaresultoftheaccident,2civilcaseswerefiledfordamagesfor
thedeathandphysicalinjuriessustainedbythevictimsboardingtheFordEscort;
aswellasacriminalcaseagainstGalang

Duringthetrial,evidencewerepresentedshowingthatthedriverof
theTruckwasspeedingresultingintheskidmarksitcausedinthesceneofthe
accident

ThelowercourtfoundGalangguiltyinthecriminalcase,butthe
civilcasesweredismissed

Onappeal,theCAaffirmedtheconvictionofGalang,andreversed
thedecisioninthecivilcases,orderingthepaymentofdamagesforthedeathand
physicalinjuriesoftheMcKeefamily

OnMR,theCAreverseditspreviousdecisionandruledinfavorof
theownersofthetruck
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NtheowneranddriveroftheTruckwereresponsibleforthecollision
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
THEPROXIMATECAUSEOFTHECOLLISIONWASTHEOVERSPEEDING
OFTHETRUCKSHOWINGITSNEGLIGENCE
Thetestofnegligenceandthefactsobtaininginthiscase,itismanifestthatno
negligencecouldbeimputedtoJoseKoh.Anyreasonableandordinaryprudentman
wouldhavetriedtoavoidrunningoverthetwoboysbyswervingthecarawayfrom
wheretheywereevenifthiswouldmeanenteringtheoppositelane.Avoidingsuch
immediateperilwouldbethenaturalcoursetotakeparticularlywherethevehicleinthe
oppositelanewouldbeseveralmetersawayandcouldverywellslowdown,movetothe
sideoftheroadandgivewaytotheoncomingcar.Moreover,underwhatisknownasthe
emergencyrule,"onewhosuddenlyfindshimselfinaplaceofdanger,andisrequiredto
actwithouttimetoconsiderthebestmeansthatmaybeadoptedtoavoidtheimpending
danger,isnotguiltyofnegligence,ifhefailstoadoptwhatsubsequentlyandupon
reflectionmayappeartohavebeenabettermethod,unlesstheemergencyinwhichhe
findshimselfisbroughtaboutbyhisownnegligence"

Consideringthesuddenintrusionofthe2boysintothelaneofthecar,theCourtfinds
thatJoseKohadoptedthebestmeanspossibleinthegivensituationtoavoidhitting
them.Applyingtheabovetest,therefore,itisclearthathewasnotguiltyofnegligence

Inanycase,assuming,arguendothatJoseKohisnegligent,itcannot
besaidthathisnegligencewastheproximatecauseofthecollision.Galang's
negligenceisapparentintherecords.Hehimselfsaidthathistruckwasrunningat
30miles(48kilometers)perhouralongthebridgewhilethemaximumspeed
allowedbylawonabridgeisonly30kilometersperhour.UnderArticle2185of
theCivilCode,apersondrivingavehicleispresumednegligentifatthetimeof
themishap,hewasviolatinganytrafficregulation

EvenifJoseKohwasindeednegligent,thedoctrineoflastclear
chancefindsapplicationhere.Lastclearchanceisadoctrineinthelawoftorts
whichstatesthatthecontributorynegligenceofthepartyinjuredwillnotdefeat
theclaimfordamagesifitisshownthatthedefendantmight,bytheexerciseof
reasonablecareandprudence,haveavoidedtheconsequencesofthenegligence
oftheinjuredparty.Insuchcases,thepersonwhohadthelastclearchanceto
avoidthemishapisconsideredinlawsolelyresponsiblefortheconsequences
thereof

Applyingtheforegoingdoctrine,itisnotdifficulttorulethatitwas
thetruckdriver'snegligenceinfailingtoexertordinarycaretoavoidthecollision
whichwas,inlaw,theproximatecauseofthecollision.Asemployersofthetruck
driver,TayagandManaloare,underArticle2180oftheCivilCode,directlyand
primarilyliablefortheresultingdamages.Thepresumptionthattheyarenegligent
flowsfromthenegligenceoftheiremployee.Thatpresumption,however,isonly
juristantum,notjurisetdejure.Theironlypossibledefenseisthattheyexercised
allthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilytopreventthedamage,whichthey
failedtodo

LBCAirInc,etalvCA,etal|Vitug,J.G.R.No.101683February23,1995
FACTS

Atabout11:30inthemorningof15November1987.Rogelio
Monterola,alicenseddriver,wastravelingonboardhisSuzukimotorcycle
towardsMangagoyontherightlanealongadustynationalroadinBislig,Surigao
delSur.


Ataboutthesametime,acargovanoftheLBCAirCargo
Incorporated,drivenbydefendantJaimeTano,Jr.,wascomingfromtheopposite
directiononitswaytotheBisligAirport.OnboardwerepassengersFernandoYu,
ManagerofLBCAirCargo,andhissonwhowasseatedbesideTano.

WhenTano(driver)wasapproachingthevicinityoftheairportroad
entranceonhisleft,hesawtwovehiclesracingagainsteachotherfromthe
oppositedirection.Tanostoppedhisvehicleandwaitedforthetworacingvehicles
topassby.Thestirredcloudofdustmadevisibilityextremelybad.

Insteadofwaitingforthedusttosettle,Tanostartedtomakeasharp
leftturntowardstheairportroad.Whenhewasabouttoreachthecenterofthe
rightlane,themotorcycledrivenbyMonterolasuddenlyemergedfromthedust
andsmashedheadonagainsttherightsideoftheLBCvan.Monteroladiedfrom
thesevereinjurieshesustained.

Acriminalcasefor"homicidethrurecklessimprudence"wasfiled
againstTano.Acivilsuitwaslikewiseinstitutedbytheheirsofdeceased
MonterolaagainstTano,alongwithFernandoYuandLBCAirCargo
Incorporated,fortherecoveryofdamages.Thetwocasesweretriedjointlybythe
RegionalTrialCourt

RTCdismissedbothcasesonthegroundthattheproximatecauseof
the"accident"wasthenegligenceofdeceasedRogelioMonterola.

CAReversed,hencethispetitionforreview
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NTanosallegednegligencewastheproximatecauseoftheaccident
o <Tano(driver)>DeceasedMonterolawascontributorynegligent,heevenhadthe
lastclearchancetoevadethecollision
o <HeirsofMonterola>ProximatecausewasnegligenceofTanowhenhedidnotwaitfor
thedusttosettle
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
YES,Tanosnegligenceistheproximatecauseoftheaccident.
Fromeveryindication,theproximatecauseoftheaccidentwasthenegligenceofTano
who,despiteextremelypoorvisibility4,hastilyexecutedaleftturn(towardstheBislig
airportroadentrance)withoutfirstwaitingforthedusttosettle.Itwasthisnegligentact

ofTano,whichhadplacedhisvehicle(LBCvan)directlyonthepathofthemotorcycle
comingfromtheoppositedirection,thatalmostinstantaneouslycausedthecollisionto
occur.Simpleprudencerequiredhimnottoattempttocrosstheotherlaneuntilafterit
wouldhavebeensafefromandclearofanyoncomingvehicle.
Petitionerspoorlyinvokethedoctrineof"lastclearchance"(alsoreferredto,attimes,
as"superveningnegligence"oras"discoveredperil").Thedoctrine,inessence,istothe
effectthatwherebothpartiesarenegligent,butthenegligentactofoneisappreciably
laterintimethanthatoftheother,orwhenitisimpossibletodeterminewhosefaultor
negligenceshouldbeattributedtotheincident,theonewhohadthelastclearopportunity
toavoidtheimpendingharmandfailedtodosoischargeablewiththeconsequences
thereof(seePicartvs.Smith,37Phil.809).Stateddifferently,therulewouldalsomean
thatanantecedentnegligenceofapersondoesnotprecludetherecoveryofdamagesfor
superveningnegligenceof,orbaradefenseagainsttheliabilitysoughtby,anotherifthe
latter,whohadthelastfairchance,couldhaveavoidedtheimpendingharmbythe
exerciseofduediligence(PantrancoNorthExpress,Inc.vs.Baesa,179SCRA384;Glan
People'sLumberandHardwarevs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,173SCRA464).
Inthecaseatbench,thevictimwastravelingalongthelanewherehewasrightly
supposedtobe.Theincidentoccurredinaninstant.Noappreciabletimehadelapsed,
fromthemomentTanoswervedtohislefttotheactualimpact;thatcouldhaveafforded
thevictimalastclearopportunitytoavoidthecollision.
Itistruehowever,thatthedeceasedwasnotallthatfreefromnegligenceinevidently
speedingtoocloselybehindthevehiclehewasfollowing.We,therefore,agreewiththe
appellatecourtthatthereindeedwascontributorynegligenceonthevictim'spartthat
couldwarrantamitigationofpetitionersliabilityfordamages.

Canlasvs.CourtofAppeals|PurisimaG.R.No.112160,February28,2000|
FACTS

PetitionerErlindaRamos,afterseekingprofessionalmedicalhelp,
wasadvisedtoundergoanoperationfortheremovalofastoneinhergallbladder.
ShewasreferredtoDr.Hosaka,asurgeon,whoagreedtoperformtheoperation
onher.Theoperationwasscheduledforat9:00inthemorningatprivate
respondentDeLosSantosMedicalCenter(DLSMC).Sinceneitherpetitioner
Erlindanorherhusband,petitionerRogelio,knewofanyanesthesiologist,Dr.
HosakarecommendedtothemtheservicesofDr.Gutierrez.


PetitionerErlindawasadmittedtotheDLSMCthedaybeforethe
scheduledoperation.By7:30inthemorningofthefollowingday,petitioner
Erlindawasalreadybeingpreparedforoperation.Upontherequestofpetitioner
Erlinda,hersisterinlaw,Cruz,whowasthenDeanoftheCollegeofNursingat
theCapitolMedicalCenter,wasallowedtoaccompanyherinsidetheoperating
room.

By10:00inthemorning,whenDr.Hosakawasstillnotaround,
petitionerRogelioalreadywantedtopullouthiswifefromtheoperatingroom.He
metDr.Garcia,whoremarkedthathewasalsotiredofwaitingforDr.Hosaka.
Dr.Hosakafinallyarrivedatthehospitalmorethanthree(3)hoursafterthe
scheduledoperation.Cruz,whowasthenstillinsidetheoperatingroom,heard
aboutDr.Hosakasarrival.WhilesheheldthehandofErlinda,CruzsawDr.
Gutierrezhavingahardtimeintubatingthepatient.Cruznoticedabluish
discolorationofErlindasnailbedsonherlefthand.She(Cruz)thenheardDr.
HosakainstructsomeonetocallDr.Calderon,anotheranesthesiologist.Whenhe
arrived,Dr.Calderonattemptedtointubatethepatient.Thenailbedsofthepatient
remainedbluish,thus,shewasplacedinatrendelenburgpositionaposition
wheretheheadofthepatientisplacedinapositionlowerthanherfeet.

Atalmost3:00intheafternoon,CruzsawErlindabeingwheeledto
theIntensiveCareUnit(ICU).ThedoctorsexplainedtopetitionerRogeliothathis
wifehadbronchospasm.ErlindastayedintheICUforamonth.Shewasreleased
fromthehospitalonlyfourmonthslater.Sincethen,Erlindaremainedincomatose
conditionuntilshediedin1999
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
liable

W/NDr.Gutierrez(anesthesiologist)isnegligentandhence

W/NDr.HosakaisliableundertheCaptainoftheShip
Doctrine?
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
DR.GUTIERREZNEGLIGENT.DRHOSAKALIABLEFORTHEACTS
OFHISTEAM.
Dr.Gutierrezclaimoflackofnegligenceonherpartisbeliedbytherecordsofthe
case.Ithasbeensufficientlyestablishedthatshefailedtoexercisethestandardsof

careintheadministrationofanesthesiaonapatient.Theconductofa
preanesthetic/preoperativeevaluationpriortoanoperation,whetherelectiveor
emergency,cannotbedispensedwith.Suchevaluationisnecessaryfortheformulationof
aplanofanesthesiacaresuitedtotheneedsofthepatientconcerned.
Nonetheless,Dr.Gutierrezomittedtoperformathoroughpreoperativeevaluationon
Erlinda.Assheherselfadmitted,shesawErlindaforthefirsttimeonthedayofthe
operationitself,onehourbeforethescheduledoperation.Sheauscultatedthepatients
heartandlungsandcheckedthelattersbloodpressuretodetermineifErlindawasindeed
fitforoperation.However,shedidnotproceedtoexaminethepatientsairway.Hadshe
beenabletocheckpetitionerErlindasairwaypriortotheoperation,Dr.Gutierrezwould
mostprobablynothaveexperienceddifficultyinintubatingtheformer,andthusthe
resultantinjurycouldhavebeenavoided.
Forhispart,Dr.HosakamainlycontendsthattheCourterredinfindinghimnegligentas
asurgeonbyapplyingtheCaptainoftheShipdoctrine.Dr.Hosakaarguesthatthetrend
inUnitedStatesjurisprudencehasbeentorejectsaiddoctrineinlightofthe
developmentsinmedicalpractice.Hepointsoutthatanesthesiologyandsurgeryaretwo
distinctandspecializedfieldsinmedicineandasasurgeon,heisnotdeemedtohave
controlovertheactsofDr.Gutierrez.Asanesthesiologist,Dr.Gutierrezisaspecialistin
herfieldandhasacquiredskillsandknowledgeinthecourseofhertrainingwhichDr.
Hosaka,asasurgeon,doesnotpossess.
ThatthereisatrendinAmericanjurisprudencetodoawaywiththeCaptainoftheShip
doctrinedoesnotmeanthatthisCourtwillipsofactofollowsaidtrend.Dueregardfor
thepeculiarfactualcircumstancesobtaininginthiscasejustifytheapplicationofthe
CaptainoftheShipdoctrine.FromthefactsonrecorditcanbelogicallyinferredthatDr.
Hosakaexercisedacertaindegreeof,attheveryleast,supervisionovertheprocedure
thenbeingperformedonErlinda.
First,itwasDr.HosakawhorecommendedtopetitionerstheservicesofDr.Gutierrez.In
effect,herepresentedtopetitionersthatDr.Gutierrezpossessedthenecessary
competenceandskills.Drs.HosakaandGutierrezhadworkedtogethersince1977.
Second,Dr.HosakahimselfadmittedthathewastheattendingphysicianofErlinda.
Thus,whenErlindashowedsignsofcyanosis,itwasDr.Hosakawhogaveinstructionsto
callforanotheranesthesiologistandcardiologisttohelpresuscitateErlinda.Third,itis

concededthatinperformingtheirresponsibilitiestothepatient,Drs.Hosakaand
Gutierrezworkedasateam.Theirworkcannotbeplacedinseparatewatertight
compartmentsbecausetheirdutiesintersectwitheachother.
Ferrervs.Ericta|Kapunan
G.R.No.129329,July31,2001|362SCRA56
FACTS

Mr.andMrs.FrancisPfleiderweretheownersoroperatorsofaFord
pickupcar.Atabout5:00o'clockintheafternoonofDecember31,1970,their
son,defendantDennisPfleider,whowasthenonlysixteen(16)yearsofage,
withoutproperofficialauthority,drovetheforpickup,withoutdueregardto
trafficrulesandregulations,andwithouttakingthenecessaryprecautionto
preventinjurytopersonsordamagetoproperty.Thepickupcarwasoverturned,
causingphysicalinjuriestoplaintiffAnnetteFerrer,whowasthenapassenger
therein,whichinjuriesparalyzedherandrequiredmedicaltreatmentand
confinementatdifferenthospitalsformorethantwo(2)years;thatasaresultof
thephysicalinjuriessustainedbyAnnette,shesufferedunimaginablephysical
pain,mentalanguish,andherparentsalsosufferedmentalanguish,moralshock
andspentaconsiderablesumofmoneyforhertreatment.

ThecomplaintwasonlyfiledonJanuary5,1975.

AtthepretrialonMay12,1975,onlyFerrerandcounselwere
present.Assuchthe
Pfleidersweredeclaredindefaultandthecourtrenderedjudgmentagainstthem.

Uponfilingamotionforreconsideration,respondentjudge,without
settingasidetheorderofdefault,issuedanorderabsolvingdefendantsfromany
liabilityonthegroundsthat:(a)thecomplaintstatesnocauseofactionbecauseit
doesnotallegethatDennisPfleiderwaslivingwithhisparentsatthetimeofthe
vehicularaccident,consideringthatunderArticle2180oftheCivilCode,the
fatherand,incaseofhisdeathorincapacitythemother,areonlyresponsiblefor
thedamagescausedbytheirminorchildrenwholiveintheircompany;and(b)
thatthedefenseofprescriptionismeritorious,sincethecomplaintwasfiledmore
thanfour(4)yearsafterthedateoftheaccident,andtheactiontorecoverdamages
basedonquasidelictprescribesin
four(4)years.Hence,theinstantpetitionformandamus.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/Nthedefenseofprescriptionhadbeendeemedwaivedbyprivaterespondents'
failuretoallegethesameintheiranswer.

HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
NO.DEFENSEOFPRESCRIPTIONNOTDEEMEDWAIVED.

Wheretheanswerdoesnottakeissuewiththecomplaintastodates
involvedinthedefendant'sclaimofprescription,hisfailuretospecificallyplead
prescriptionintheanswerdoesnotconstituteawaiverofthedefenseof
prescription.Thedefenseofprescription,evenifnotraisedinamotiontodismiss
orintheanswer,isnotdeemedwaivedunlesssuchdefenseraisesissuesoffact
notappearinguponthe
precedingpleading

Itistruethatthedefenseofprescriptioncanonlybeconsideredifthe
sameis
invokedassuchintheanswerofthedefendantandthatinthisparticularinstance

nosuchdefensewasinvokedbecausethedefendantshadbeendeclaredindefault,but
suchruledoesnotobtainwhentheevidenceshowsthatthecauseofactionuponwhich
plaintiff'scomplaintisbasedisalreadybarredbythestatuteoflimitations
Inthepresentcase,thereisnoissueoffactinvolvedinconnectionwiththequestionof
prescription.Actionsfordamagesarisingfromphysicalinjuriesbecauseofatortmustbe
filedwithinfouryears.8Thefouryearperiodbeginsfromthedaythequasidelictis
committedorthedateoftheaccident

Kramer,Jr.vs.CA|Gancayco,J.:
G.R.No.83524,October13,1989|178SCRA518
FACTS

OnApril8,1976,F/BMarjolea,afishingboatownedbypetitioners
ErnestKramer,Jr.andMartaKramerwasnavigatingitswayfromMarinduqueto
Manila.

SomewhereneartheMaricabonIslandandCapeSantiago,theboat
figuredinacollisionwithaninterislandvessel(M/VAsiaPhilippines)ownedby
TransAsiaShippingLines,Inc.

Duetothecollision,F/BMarjoleasank,takingalongitsfishcatch.

ThecaptainsofbothvesselsfiledaprotestwiththeBoardofMarine
InquiryofthePhilippineCoastGuardforthepurposeofdeterminingthe
proximatecuaseofthemaritime
collision

OnOctober19,1981,theBoardconcludedthatthecollisionwasdue
tothenegligenceoftheemployeesofprivaterespondent(TransAsia).

Onthebasisofsuchdecision,thePhilippineCoastGuard,onApril
29,1982,suspendedM/VAsiaPhilippinesfrompursuinghisprofessionasa
marineofficer.

OnMay30,1985,petitionersfiledacomplaintfordamagesinthe
RTC,PasayCity.

PrivaterespondentfiledaMTDonthegroundofprescriptionbased
onArt.1146oftheCivilCodewhichprovides,Anactionbaseduponquasidelict
mustbeinstitutedwithin4yearsfromthedaythequasidelcitwascommitted.

TheRTCdeniedtheMTDonthebasisoftheBoardsresolutionthat
therewasaneedtorelyonhighlytechnicalaspectsattendanttosuchcollision,
hence,theprescriptiveperiodunderthelawshouldbegintorunonlyfromApril
29,1982,thedatewhenthenegligenceofthecrewofM/VAsiaPhilippineshad
beenfinallyascertained.

OnappealtotheCA,thesaidcourtreversedtheRTCsdecisionand
grantedtheMTD,hencethepresentpetitionforcertiorariandprohibition.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/Nacomplaintfordamagesinstitutedbythepetitionersagainsttheprivate
respondentarisingfromamarinecollisionisbarredbythestatuteoflimitations
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
YES.
Therightofactionaccrueswhenthereexistsacauseofaction,whichconsistsof3
elements,namely:
o Arightinfavoroftheplaintiffbywhatevermeansandunderwhateverlawitarisesor
iscreated
o Anobligationonthepartofdefendanttorespectsuchright

o Anactoromissiononthepartofsuchdefendantviolativeoftheright
oftheplaintiff
Theoccurrenceofthelastelementisthetimewhenthecauseofactionarise
Aggrievedpartyneednotwaitforadeterminationbyanadministrativebodythatthe
collisionwascausedbyfaultornegligenceoftheotherpartybeforehecanfileactionfor
damages

GotescoInvestmentCorporationvs.Chatto|DavideG.R.No.87584,June16,1992|
210SCRA18
FACTS

GloriaE.Chattoandher15yearolddaughterLinawenttoseethe
movieMotherDearatSuperamaItheater,ownedbyGotescoInvestment
Corporation.Theyboughtbalconyticketsbuteventhenwereunabletofindseats
consideringthenumberofpeoplepatronizingthemovie.Hardly10minutesafter
enteringthetheater,theceilingofthebalconycollapsedandpandemonium
ensued.

TheChattosmanagedtocrawlunderthefallenceilingandwalkto
thenearbyFEUhospitalwheretheywereconfinedandtreatedforaday.Later,
theyhadtotransfertoUSThospital,andbecauseofcontinuingpainintheneck,
headache,anddizziness,hadtoevengotoIllinois,USAfortreatment.

Gotescotriedtoavoidliabilitybyallegingthatthecollapsewasdue
toforcemajeure.Itmaintainedthatitstheaterdidnotsufferfromanystructuralor
constructiondefect.Thetrialcourtawardedactual/compensatoryandmoral
damagesandattorneysfeesinfavoroftheChattos.TheCAalsofoundGotescos
appealtobewithoutmerit.Hencethispetition.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/Nthecauseofthecollapseofthebalconyceilingwasforcemajeure
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
COLLAPSEOFTHEBALCONYCEILINGNOTDUETOFORCEMAJEURE.
GOTESCOLIABLE.


Gotescosclaimthatthecollapseoftheceilingofthetheaterwasdue
toforcemajeureisnotevenfoundedonfactsbecauseitsownwitness,Mr.Ong,
admittedthathecouldnotgiveanyreasonforthecollapse.Havinginterposeditas
adefense,ithadtheburdentoprovethatthecollapsewasindeedcausedbyforce
majeure.Itcouldnothavecollapsedwithoutacause.ThatMr.Ongcouldnotoffer
anyexplanationdoesnotimplyforcemajeure.

SpanishandAmericanauthoritiesonthemeaningofforcemajeure:
Inevitableaccidentorcasualty;anaccidentproducedbyanyphysicalcausewhich
isirresistible;suchaslightning,tempest,perilsofthesea,inundation,or
earthquake;thesuddenillnessordeathofaperson.[Blackstone]
Theeventwhichwecouldneitherforeseenorresist;as,forexample,thelightning
stroke,hail,inundation,hurricane,publicenemy,attackbyrobbers;[Esriche]
Anyaccidentduetonaturalcauses,directly,exclusively,withouthuman
intervention,suchascouldnothavebeenpreventedbyanykindofoversight,
pains,andcarereasonablytohavebeenexpected.[Bouvier]
Gotescocouldhaveeasilydiscoveredthecauseofthecollapseifindeeditweredueto
forcemajeure.TherealreasonwhyMr.Ongcouldnotexplainthecauseisbecauseeither
hedidnotactuallyconductaninvestigationorbecauseheisincompetent(notan
engineer,butanarchitectwhohadnotevenpassedthegovernmentsexamination).
Thebuildingwasconstructedbarely4yearspriortotheaccident.Itwasnotshownthat
anyofthecausesdenominatedasforcemajeureobtainedimmediatelybeforeoratthe
timeofthecollapseoftheceiling.Suchdefectscouldhavebeendiscoveredifonly
Gotescoexercisedduediligenceandcareinkeepingandmaintainingthepremises.But,
asdisclosedbyMr.Ong,noadequateinspectionofthepremisesbeforethedateofthe
accident.
ThatthestructuraldesignsandplansofthebuildingweredulyapprovedbytheCity
Engineerandthebuildingpermitsandcertificateofoccupancywereissueddonotatall
provethattherewerenodefectsintheconstruction,especiallyasregardstheceiling,
consideringthatnotestimonywasofferedtoprovethatitwaseverinspectedatall.
Andevenassumingarguendothatthecauseofthecollapsewasduetoforcemajeure,
Gotescowouldstillbeliablebecausethetrialcourtdeclaredittobeguiltyofgross
negligence.AsgleanedfromBouviersdefinition,foronetobeexemptfromanyliability
becauseofit,hemusthaveexercisedcare,i.e.,heshouldnothavebeenguiltyof
negligence.

Gatchalianvs.Delim|
G.R.No.L56487October21,1991|203SCRA126
FACTS

ReynaldaGatchalianboardedThamesminibusownedbyDelim.
ThebuswasheadedforBauang,LaUnion.Ontheway,whilethebuswasrunning
alongthehighwayinBarrioPayocpoc,Bauang,Union,"asnappingsound"was
suddenlyheardatonepartofthebusand,shortlythereafter,thevehiclebumpeda
cementflowerpotonthesideoftheroad,wentofftheroad,turnedturtleandfell
intoaditch.

Severalpassengers,includingGatchalian,wereinjured.Theywere
promptlytakentoBethanyHospitalatSanFernando,LaUnion,formedical
treatment.Uponmedicalexamination,petitionerwasfoundtohavesustained
physicalinjuriesontheleg,armandforehead.

Mrs.Delimpaidforallthehospitalexpenses.Shealsoaskedthe
passengerstosignadocument[JointAffidavit]stating,Thatwearenolonger
interestedtofileacomplaint,criminalorcivilagainstthesaiddriverandownerof
thesaidThames,becauseitwasanaccidentandthesaiddriverandownerofthe
saidThameshavegonetotheextentofhelpingustobetreateduponourinjuries.

EvenifGatchaliansignedthisdocument,shestillfiledthiscase.
ISSUES&ARGUMENTS
W/NthedocumentDelimhadGatchaliansignatthehospitalconstitutesavalid
waiver.
HOLDING&RATIODECIDENDI
NO.THEDOCUMENTWASNOTAVALIDWAIVER.

Awaiver,tobevalidandeffective,mustinthefirstplacebecouched
inclearandunequivocaltermswhichleavenodoubtastotheintentionofaperson
togiveuparightorbenefitwhichlegallypertainstohim.Awaivermaynot
casuallybeattributedtoapersonwhenthetermsthatdonotexplicitlyandclearly
evidenceanintenttoabandonarightvestedinsuchperson.

ThecircumstancesunderwhichtheJointAffidavitwassignedby
Gatchalianneedtobeconsidered.Gatchalianwasstillreelingfromtheeffectsof
thevehicularaccident,havingbeeninthehospitalforonlythreedays,whenthe
purportedwaiverintheformoftheJointAffidavitwaspresentedtoherfor

signing,whilereadingthedocument,sheexperienceddizzinessbutsincetheother
passengerswhohadalsosufferedinjuriessignedthedocument,shetoosigned
withoutbotheringtoreadtheJointAffidavitinitsentirety.Consideringthese
circumstancesthereappearssubstantialdoubtwhetherGatchalianunderstoodfully
theimportoftheJointAffidavit(preparedbyDelim)shesignedandwhethershe
actuallyintendedtherebytowaiveanyrightofaction.

Moreover,forawaivertobevlaid,itmustnotbecontrarytolaw,
pubicpolicy,moralsandgoodcustoms.Inthiscase,Delimwastheownerofthe
minibuswhich
takespassengersaroundLaUnion.Shehasacontractofcarriagewiththemandis
requiredtoexerciseextraordinarydiligencewhenfulfillingthesecontractualduties.To
upholdasupposedwaiverofanyrighttoclaimdamagesbyaninjuredpassenger,under
circumstanceslikethoseexhibitedinthiscase,wouldbetodiluteandweakenthe
standardofextraordinarydiligenceexactedbythelawfromcommoncarriersandhence
torenderthatstandardunenforceable.Thewaiverisoffensivetopulicpolicy.