Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation vs. Angala

Where both parties to a vehicular collision are negligent, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the accident but failed to do so is chargeable with the loss under the doctrine of last clear chance.

On 4 May 1993, at approximately 2:45 p.m., a Datsun crewcab owned by LADECO and driven by Apolonio Deocampo bumped into a 1958 Chevy pick-up owned by Michael Raymond Angala and driven by Bernulfo Borres along Rafael Castillo St., Agdao, Davao City. Both vehicles were heading north towards Lanang. The collision occurred as the pick-up was making a turn, resulting in damage to the pick-up's left door, front left fender, and part of the front bumper. Angala sent a demand letter to LADECO for the damages incurred, but receiving no reply, he filed an action for quasi-delict, damages, and attorney's fees against LADECO, its administrative officer Henry Berenguel, and Deocampo.

• The Collision: On 4 May 1993, Deocampo was driving a LADECO crewcab behind Borres, who was driving Angala's pick-up, along Rafael Castillo St., Davao City. The pick-up was in the outer lane and began slowing down to execute a U-turn. The crewcab collided with the rear of the pick-up, and the crewcab stopped 21 meters from the point of impact.
• Respondent's Version: Respondent testified that the pick-up was slowing down to 5-10 kph and had signaled a left turn via a blinking light. The crewcab was traveling at a high speed of 60-70 kph. A screeching sound was heard before the impact.
• Petitioners' Version: Deocampo claimed both vehicles were traveling at 40 kph. He stated the pick-up made a sudden U-turn from the outer lane about 10 meters away without any signal. Although he saw the pick-up 20 meters away, he did not apply the brakes before the collision because he deemed it unavoidable, stepping on the brakes only after the impact. Traffic was light, with no other vehicles on the road.

• Improper U-Turn: Petitioners argued that Borres violated Section 45(b) of Republic Act No. 4136 by executing a U-turn from the outer lane instead of the inner lane nearest the center of the highway.
• Presumption of Negligence: Petitioners maintained that because Borres was violating a traffic regulation at the time of the mishap, Article 2185 of the Civil Code presumes him negligent, making Borres and respondent the parties at fault.
• Due Diligence of Employer: LADECO argued it should not be held jointly and severally liable with Deocampo because it exercised due diligence in the supervision and selection of its employees.

• Speeding and Failure to Brake: Respondent countered that Deocampo was driving at an excessive speed of 60-70 kph and failed to apply the brakes before the collision, which was the proximate cause of the accident.
• Last Clear Chance: Respondent argued that even assuming both parties were negligent, Deocampo had the last clear opportunity to avoid the accident but failed to do so, justifying the application of the doctrine of last clear chance.
• Employer Liability: Respondent maintained that LADECO is solidarily liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the negligence of its driver, having failed to prove due diligence in his selection and supervision.

• Applicability of Traffic Regulations and Presumption of Negligence: Whether Section 45(b) of Republic Act No. 4136 and Article 2185 of the Civil Code apply to this case.
• Entitlement to Damages: Whether respondent is entitled to the damages awarded by the lower courts.

• Applicability of Traffic Regulations and Presumption of Negligence: Both parties were negligent. Borres was negligent for making a U-turn from the outer lane in violation of Section 45(b) of RA 4136, triggering the presumption of negligence under Article 2185 of the Civil Code. However, Deocampo was equally negligent for driving at an excessive speed and failing to slow down or apply the brakes despite noticing the pick-up's deceleration from a close distance under light traffic conditions. Because both parties were at fault, the doctrine of last clear chance applies. Deocampo, driving the rear vehicle, had full control of the situation and the last clear opportunity to avoid the collision but failed to do so due to his excessive speed and failure to brake. Accordingly, Deocampo is chargeable with the loss.
• Solidary Liability of Employer: LADECO was correctly held solidarily liable with Deocampo under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The bare allegation of having exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees was insufficient; LADECO failed to present proof of its hiring policies or supervision methods.
• Entitlement to Damages: The award of moral damages was sustained because respondent sufficiently proved that he suffered shock, serious anxiety, and fright during the collision. However, the award of attorney's fees was deleted because the lower courts failed to provide any factual or legal justification for it, and no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.

• Doctrine of Last Clear Chance — Where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the loss. Applied to hold Deocampo primarily liable because, as the driver of the rear vehicle, he had full control, the responsibility to avoid bumping the vehicle in front, and the last clear opportunity to avoid the collision but failed to brake or reduce his excessive speed.
• Presumption of Negligence under Article 2185 — Unless there is proof to the contrary, a person driving a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. Applied to find Borres negligent for making a U-turn from the outer lane in violation of Section 45(b), RA 4136.
• Presumption of Employer Negligence under Article 2180 — Employers are held solidarily liable for the quasi-delicts committed by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, unless the employer proves that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. Applied to hold LADECO solidarily liable because it failed to substantiate its defense of due diligence with evidence of hiring policies or supervisory practices.

• "The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the loss."
• "Awards of attorney’s fees must be based on findings of fact and of law and stated in the decision of the trial court. Further, no premium should be placed on the right to litigate."

• Philippine National Railways v. Brunty — Followed for the principle that factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court, and for the definition of the doctrine of last clear chance.
• Raynera v. Hiceta — Followed for the proposition that a driver of a rear vehicle has the responsibility of avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of him.
• Adzuara v. CA — Followed for the observation that a U-turn is executed at a much slower speed compared to running straight ahead, to avoid skidding and overturning.
• Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals — Followed for the definition of moral damages and the principle that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.
• Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v. CA — Followed for the requirement that awards of attorney's fees must be based on findings of fact and of law stated in the trial court's decision.

• Section 45(b), Republic Act No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code) — Requires a driver intending to turn left to approach the intersection in the lane for traffic nearest to the center line of the highway. Applied to find Borres negligent for executing a U-turn from the outer lane instead of the inner lane.
• Article 2185, Civil Code — Presumes a driver negligent if violating a traffic regulation at the time of a mishap. Applied to establish Borres's negligence.
• Article 2180, Civil Code — Presumes the negligence of an employee to be the negligence of the employer, who is solidarily liable unless due diligence in selection and supervision is proven. Applied to hold LADECO solidarily liable due to its failure to prove such due diligence.

Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr.