Philippine Legal Guide

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

G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991

Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

April 20, 1983 6:30 am: a collision occurred between a 1947 model gravel and sand truck driven by
Montesiano and owned by Del Pilar and a Mazda passenger bus driven Susulin along the national road at
Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite

front left side portion (barandilla) of the body of the truck sideswiped the left side wall of the passenger
bus, ripping off the wall from the driver's seat to the last rear seat

several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died as a result of the injuries they sustained:

1. Rogelio Bustamante, 40, husband of Emma Adriano Bustamante and father of Rossel, Gloria, Yolanda,
Ericson, and Ederic, all surnamed Bustamante;

2. Maria Corazon Jocson, 16, daughter of spouses Salvador and Patria Jocson;

3. Jolet C. Ramos, 16, daughter of spouses Jose and Enriqueta Ramos;

4. Enrico Himaya, 18, son of spouses Narciso and Adoracion Himaya; and

5. Noel Bersamina, 17, son of spouses Jose and Ma. Commemoracion Bersamina

The bus was registered in the name of Novelo but was owned and/or operated as a passenger bus jointly
by Magtibay and Serrado

before the collision, the cargo truck and the passenger bus were approaching each other, coming from
the opposite directions of the highway. While the truck was still about 30 meters away, Susulin, the bus
driver, saw the front wheels of the vehicle wiggling. He also observed that the truck was heading
towards his lane. Not minding this circumstance due to his belief that the driver of the truck was merely
joking, Susulin shifted from fourth to third gear in order to give more power and speed to the bus, which
was ascending the inclined part of the road, in order to overtake or pass a Kubota hand tractor being
pushed by a person along the shoulder of the highway

RTC: liability of the two drivers for their negligence must be solidary

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

HELD: NO. Petition is granted. CA reversed.

the doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a person's own acts may have placed him in a
position of peril, and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to recovery.

a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the
negligent acts of his opponent or that of a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law
solely responsible for the consequences of the accident.

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

Ilocos Electric Company vs CAFacts: A Typhoon hit the province of IlocosNorte bringing heavy rains and
flood. When the typhoon abated and flood water begin to recede, Nana Belen went to her grocery store
together with 2 assistants following her to check on her merchadise. After a few meters away Nana
Belen screamed "AY!" thensank into the flood water. The 2 girls following her noticed anelectric wire
dangling, Nana Belen was electrocuted. Issue: Whether or not Ilocos Norte Electric Company is to be
held liable.Held: Petitioner was negligent in seeing to it that no harmis done to the general public"
considering that electricity is an agency, subtle and deadly, the measure of care required of electric
companies must be commensurate with or proportionate to the danger. The duty of exercising this high
degree of diligence and care extends to every place where persons have a right to be" (Astudillo vs.
Manila Electric, 55 Phil. 427). The negligence of petitioner having been shown, it may not now absolve
itself from liability by arguing that the victim's death was solely due to a fortuitous event. "When an act
of God combines or concurs with the negligence of the defendant to produce an injury, the defendant is
liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his own negligent conduct or omission".