Bustamante v. CA (1991) Medialdea, J.

Facts:

1. A gravel and sand cargo truck owned by del Pilar and driven by Montesiano
collided with a passenger bus driven by Susulin, registered in the name of Novelo but was actually owned/operated by Magtibay and Serrado. The vehicles were running on opposite sides of the road. The truck was running fast because the road was descending (or maybe its already fast speed was compounded by the fact that it was descendingthe case is unclear as to that fact), it was already encroaching on the opposite lane, and its front wheels were wigglingall of which were observed by the bus driver. However, instead of slowing down and/or avoiding the truck, the bus driver, thinking the truck driver was only joking, shifted from fourth to third gear in order to gain more power and speed and attempted to overtake a tractor being pushed along the shoulder of the highway. The two vehicles sideswiped each other, the left front part of the truck hitting the length of the left portion of the bus and removing its side wall, resulting in the death of five of its passengers. TC: determined that the negligent acts of both drivers contributed to or combined in directly causing the accident, and that it could not be determined which act was the proximate cause of the collision. The liability of the two drivers was held to be solidary. The owner and the driver of the truck appealed. CA: reversed the judgment, and dismissed the complaint insofar as the owner and driver of the truck were concerned, reasoning: a. That the bus driver had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. b. That the bus driver was not competent and responsible, having committed a traffic violation and having had his license confiscated, and having admitted that he was not the regular driver of the bus and that he was not given any practical examination prior to driving it. c. That it judicial notice of the fact that the truck was running down a descending road and was more liable to get out of control, negating the finding that the truck was running fast before the impact.

2.

3.

Issue/Held: WON the appellate court correctly applied the doctrine of last clear chance. NO, it did not. Ratio:

1. The respondent court committed an error of law in applying the doctrine of

last clear chance as between 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 two vehicles. The doctrine, stated broadly, is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude the recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiffs negligence. a. Even though a persons own acts may have placed him in a position of peril and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to recovery. b. A person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that of

2.

a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident. c. Its practical import is that a negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff or even to a plaintiff grossly negligent, if he, aware of the plaintiffs peril (or should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care), had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident. d. The doctrine applies in a suit between the owners and driers 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 one vehicle and its owners on the ground that the other driver is likewise guilty of negligence. e. The doctrine cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latters 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. Petition granted. Appealed judgment reversed and set aside, and the judgment of the lower court is reinstated.