CASE DIGEST: BUSTAMANTE, et. al. vs. CA

EMMA ADRIANO BUSTAMANTE, in her own behalf as Guardian-Ad-Litem of minors: ROSSEL, GLORIA, YOLANDA, ERIC SON and EDERIC, all surnamed BUSTAMANTE, Spouses SALVADOR JOCSON and PATRIA BONE-JOCSON, Spouses JOSE RAMOS and ENRIQUETA CEBU-RAMOS, Spouses NARCISO-HIMAYA and ADORACION MARQUEZ-HIMAYA, and Spouses JOSE BERSAMINA and MA. COMMEMORACION PEREA-BUSTAMANTE, petitioners,

VS

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FEDERICO DEL PILAR AND EDILBERTO MONTESIANO,respondents

G.R. No. 89880 [February 6, 1991]

Facts:

            At about 6:30 in the morning of April 20, 1983, a collision occurred between a gravel and sand truck, with Plate No. DAP 717, and a Mazda passenger bus with Motor No. Y2231 and Plate No. DVT 259 along the national road at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite. The front left side portion (barandilla) of the body of the truck sideswiped the left side wall of the passenger bus, ripping off the said wall from the driver’s seat to the last rear seat. Due to the impact, several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died as a result of the injuries they sustained.

            The trial court held that the negligent acts of both drivers contributed to or combined with each other in directly causing the accident which led to the death of the passengers. It could not be determined from the evidence that it was only the negligent act of one of them which was the proximate cause of the collision. In view of this, the liability of the two drivers for their negligence must be solidary. The Court of Appeals ruled on the contrary, it held that the bus driver had the last clear chance to avoid the collision and his reckless negligence in proceeding to overtake the hand tractor was the proximate cause of the collision.

Issue:

            Whether or not the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance applies in the case at bar.

Ruling:

            The principle of “last clear chance” applies “in a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence.” Furthermore, as between defendants: The doctrine cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter’s peril, and it cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. As against third persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently failed to take action which could have avoided the injury.The Court is convinced that the respondent Court committed an error of law in applying the doctrine of last clear chance as between the defendants, since the case at bar is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles. Therefore, the respondent court erred in absolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck from liability.