Bustamante v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 20, 1983, a collision occurred between a gravel and sand truck (driven by Montesiano, owned by Del Pilar) and a passenger bus (driven by Susulin, owned/operated by Magtibay and Serrado) along the national road at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite. The truck sideswiped the passenger bus, causing several passengers to be thrown out and sustain fatal injuries. Among the deceased were Rogelio Bustamante, Maria Corazon Jocson, Jolet C. Ramos, Enrico Himaya, and Noel Bersamina. Procedural History: The trial court found both drivers negligent and held them jointly and severally liable for damages, including indemnity for death, loss of earning capacity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. Defendants Federico del Pilar and Edilberto Montesiano appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, absolving Del Pilar and Montesiano, and dismissed the complaint against them, ruling that the bus driver had the last clear chance to avoid the collision and his negligence was the proximate cause. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners (heirs of the deceased passengers) sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision, questioning its legal and valid absolution of the truck driver and owner despite findings of negligence, its disregard of the trial court's factual findings, and its improper application of the doctrine of last clear chance.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court of Appeals legally and validly absolved defendants-appellants (truck driver and owner) from liability despite findings of negligence. Whether the respondent Court of Appeals validly and legally disregarded the findings of fact made by the trial court. Whether the respondent Court of Appeals properly and legally applied the doctrine of "last clear chance" in the present case. Whether the respondent Court of Appeals applied the correct law and doctrine in reversing the judgment with respect to defendants-appellants.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The appealed judgment and resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the judgment of the lower court is REINSTATED with the modification that the indemnity for death of each of the victims is increased to P50,000.00 each.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Court of Appeals legally and validly absolved defendants-appellants from liability despite findings of negligence: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Court of Appeals committed an error of law in applying the doctrine of last clear chance as between the defendants. The Court emphasized that the case at bar is not a suit solely 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. Therefore, the respondent court erred in absolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck from liability. The Court reiterated that as between defendants concurrently negligent, the doctrine of last clear chance cannot be invoked to absolve one of them from liability to third persons. The Court found that the trial court correctly determined the negligent acts of both drivers contributed to the accident. On the issue of whether the respondent Court of Appeals validly and legally disregarded the findings of fact made by the trial court: The Supreme Court stated that while findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally final, this rule admits exceptions, such as when the appellate court's findings are contrary to those of the trial court. The Court found that the appellate court's findings were contrary to those of the trial court, which was in a better position to observe the conduct and demeanor of witnesses. The trial court considered several factors indicating the truck driver's negligence, including driving an old vehicle fast, with wiggling wheels, on a descending road, with an approaching bus. The Supreme Court found these factors compelling and agreed with the trial court's assessment of negligence, thus finding it incorrect for the respondent court to disturb these factual findings. On the issue of whether the respondent Court of Appeals properly and legally applied the doctrine of "last clear chance" in the present case: The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent Court of Appeals erred in applying the doctrine of last clear chance. The Court clarified that the doctrine applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles, but it does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier. More importantly, 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. The Court stated that it cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent, and 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 suit was by the heirs of deceased passengers against both parties, the doctrine was inapplicable to absolve the truck driver and owner. On the issue of whether the respondent Court of Appeals applied the correct law and doctrine so as to reverse and set aside the judgment with respect to defendants-appellants: Based on the foregoing discussions, the Supreme Court concluded that the respondent Court of Appeals committed an error of law in its application of the doctrine of last clear chance and in disregarding the factual findings of the trial court. Consequently, the appellate court's decision was reversed. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding both drivers and owners liable, and modified the award for indemnity for death.
Main Doctrine
The doctrine of last clear chance cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent, especially when the suit is brought by third parties (heirs of deceased passengers) against both owners and drivers of colliding vehicles, as it would be inequitable to exempt a negligent driver and owner on the ground that the other driver was also negligent.