Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals

The doctrine of last clear chance applies only in a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles, not in a suit brought by passengers (or their heirs) against both owners and drivers; it cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent, and a negligent actor cannot defend against third persons by pleading that another had negligently failed to take action which could have avoided the injury.

The petitioners are the heirs and surviving family members of five passengers who died in a vehicular collision — spouses and children of the deceased Rogelio Bustamante, Maria Corazon Jocson, Jolet Ramos, Enrico Himaya, and Noel Bersamina. The respondents are Federico del Pilar, owner of a gravel and sand truck (Plate No. DAP 717), and Edilberto Montesiano, the truck's driver. The collision also involved a Mazda passenger bus (Plate No. DVT 259) driven by Ricardo Susulin, registered in the name of Efren Novelo but owned and operated by Valeriano Magtibay and Simplicio Serrado under a franchise from Naic, Cavite, to Baclaran, Parañaque. The dispute centers on whether the owner and driver of the cargo truck may be absolved from liability to the deceased passengers' heirs on the basis of the last clear chance doctrine, when both drivers were found negligent.

At about 6:30 in the morning of April 20, 1983, a collision occurred along the national road at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite, between a gravel and sand truck (Plate No. DAP 717) and a Mazda passenger bus (Motor No. Y2231, Plate No. DVT 259). The front left side portion 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. The impact threw several passengers out of the bus, resulting in the death of five persons: Rogelio Bustamante, 40; Maria Corazon Jocson, 16; Jolet Ramos, 16; Enrico Himaya, 18; and Noel Bersamina, 17.

The cargo truck was driven by Edilberto Montesiano and owned by Federico del Pilar. The passenger bus was driven by Ricardo Susulin. The bus was registered in the name of Efren Novelo but was owned and operated as a passenger bus jointly by Valeriano Magtibay and Simplicio Serrado under a franchise with a line from Naic, Cavite, to Baclaran, Parañaque, and vice versa. Novelo had sold the franchise to Magtibay on November 8, 1981, and the latter transferred it to Serrado on January 18, 1983.

Immediately before the collision, the cargo truck and the passenger bus were approaching each other from opposite directions. While the truck was still about 30 meters away, Susulin, the bus driver, saw the front wheels of the truck wiggling and observed that the truck was heading towards his lane. Not minding this circumstance because he believed the truck driver was merely joking, Susulin shifted from fourth to third gear to give more power and speed to the bus, which was ascending an inclined portion of the road, in order to overtake a Kubota hand tractor being pushed by a person along the shoulder of the highway. While the bus was in the process of overtaking the hand tractor and the truck was approaching, the two vehicles sideswiped each other on their left sides. After the impact, the truck skidded towards the other side of the road, landed on a nearby residential lot, hit a coconut tree, and felled it.

The trial court found that the negligent acts of both drivers contributed to and combined with each other in directly causing the accident. It held that it was negligent for Montesiano to drive his truck fast, considering that it was an old 1947 model, that its front wheels were wiggling, that the road was descending, and that a passenger bus was approaching. Susulin was likewise negligent for not taking necessary precautions to avoid the collision, given that at 30 meters he already saw the truck's wheels wiggling and the vehicle usurping his lane. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed as to the truck owner and driver, holding that the bus driver had the last clear chance to avoid the collision and that his reckless negligence in proceeding to overtake the hand tractor was the proximate cause. The appellate court also noted that Susulin was not a competent driver — his license had been confiscated for a traffic violation on April 17, 1983, and he was using a traffic violation ticket on the day of the accident; he also admitted he was not a regular driver of the bus and had not been given a practical examination.

• Negligence of the Truck Driver: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals could not validly absolve the truck owner and driver from liability despite its own finding, as well as that of the trial court, that Montesiano was driving an old vehicle very fast with its wheels already wiggling, such that he had no more control of his truck.
• Deference to Trial Court Findings: Petitioners maintained that the Court of Appeals could not validly disregard the factual findings of the trial court, which was in a better position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses and which conclusively found Montesiano jointly and severally negligent.
• Misapplication of Last Clear Chance: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals improperly applied the doctrine of last clear chance, given its own finding that Montesiano was admittedly negligent in driving the cargo truck very fast on a descending road with a bus approaching from the opposite direction.
• Correct Law and Doctrine: Petitioners contended that the Court of Appeals did not apply the correct law and doctrine in reversing and setting aside the judgment with respect to the truck owner and driver.

• Applicability of Last Clear Chance: Whether the doctrine of last clear chance may properly be applied as between defendants who are jointly negligent in a suit brought by the heirs of deceased passengers against the owners and drivers of both colliding vehicles.
• Review of Factual Findings: Whether the Court of Appeals' factual findings, which were contrary to those of the trial court, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Proximate Cause: Whether the bus driver's negligence constituted the sole proximate cause of the collision, thereby absolving the truck owner and driver from liability.

• Applicability of Last Clear Chance: No. The doctrine of last clear chance applies only in a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles, not in a suit brought by passengers or their heirs against both owners and drivers; it cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent.
• Review of Factual Findings: Yes. While findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally final and conclusive, an exception exists where the appellate court's findings are contrary to those of the trial court, warranting re-examination by the Supreme Court.
• Proximate Cause: No. The negligence of both drivers contributed to and combined with each other in directly causing the accident; the bus driver's negligence did not constitute the sole proximate cause such as to absolve the truck owner and driver.

• Applicability of Last Clear Chance: The doctrine of last clear chance, broadly stated, provides that the negligence of a plaintiff does not preclude recovery against a negligent defendant who, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided the injurious consequences notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence. However, citing Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, which in turn cited Anuran vs. Buno, the principle applies only 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, as it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of one vehicle and its owner on the ground that the other driver was likewise negligent. Furthermore, as between defendants, the doctrine cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one should be held liable to the injured person; 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. Since the case at bar was a suit brought by the heirs of deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles — not a suit between the owners and drivers themselves — the Court of Appeals committed an error of law in applying the doctrine to absolve the truck owner and driver.

• Review of Factual Findings: As a rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal, provided they are borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence. Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. However, this rule admits of exceptions, including when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or when the appellate court's findings are contrary to those of the trial court. Because the Court of Appeals' findings were contrary to those of the trial court, the Supreme Court opted to re-examine the factual findings. The trial court found the cargo truck was running fast, taking into account all relevant factors — the old 1947 model truck, the wiggling front wheels, the descending road, and the approaching bus. The Court of Appeals incorrectly disturbed these findings, as the trial court was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment.

• Proximate Cause: The trial court correctly determined that the negligent acts of both drivers contributed to and combined with each other in directly causing the accident. It could not be determined from the evidence that only one driver's negligent act was the proximate cause. Montesiano was negligent in driving an old truck fast on a descending road with wiggling wheels while a bus approached. Susulin was negligent in not stopping or swerving despite seeing the truck's perilous condition at 30 meters, instead shifting to a lower gear to overtake a hand tractor. The Court of Appeals erred in attributing sole proximate cause to the bus driver and absolving the truck owner and driver, as both were concurrent tortfeasors whose combined negligence produced the fatal collision.

• Last Clear Chance Doctrine — The doctrine provides that a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences. However, the doctrine applies only in a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not apply where a passenger demands responsibility from a carrier, nor can it 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. In this case, the Court held that the doctrine was erroneously applied by the Court of Appeals because the suit was brought by the heirs of deceased passengers against both owners and drivers, not between the owners and drivers themselves.
• Concurrent Negligence — Where the negligent acts of two drivers contribute to and combine with each other in directly causing an accident, and it cannot be determined that only one driver's negligence was the proximate cause, both drivers are liable jointly and severally. The negligence of one does not absolve the other, especially in an action by injured third parties (passengers or their heirs).

• "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.'" — This passage, quoting Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, articulates the controlling rule limiting the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine and forms the ratio decidendi of the case.
• "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." — This passage defines the boundary of the last clear chance doctrine as between joint tortfeasors and against third persons, establishing that concurrent negligence cannot be escaped by invoking another's failure to act.
• "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." — This is the Court's explicit conclusion that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the doctrine, tying the legal principle to the factual posture of the case.

• Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 66102-04, August 30, 1990 — Controlling precedent on the limited applicability of the last clear chance doctrine; cited for the rule that the doctrine applies only in suits between owners and drivers of colliding vehicles and not where passengers demand responsibility from the carrier.
• Anuran vs. Buno, 123 Phil. 1073 — Landmark decision cited within Philippatic Rabbit for the principle that the last clear chance doctrine does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from a carrier.
• Sese vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. 66168, 31 July 1987, 152 SCRA 585 — Cited for the exceptions to the rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive, specifically where findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence or where the appellate court's findings are contrary to those of the trial court.
• Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover and Trust Corp., G.R. 82670, 15 September 1989, 177 SCRA 618 — Cited for the principle that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in cases from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing errors of law, and that findings of fact must stand absent a showing they are devoid of support or glaringly erroneous.

• Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, limiting review to questions of law; findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive except in recognized exceptions, one of which (contrary findings to the trial court) was invoked here.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco, and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concurred.