EMMA ADRIANO BUSTAMANTE, in her own behalf as Guardian-Ad-Litem of minors: ROSSEL, GLORIA, YOLANDA, ERIC SON and EDERIC, all surnamed BUSTAMANTE, Spouses SALVADOR JOCSON and PATRIA BONE-JOCSON, Spouses JOSE RAMOS and ENRIQUETA CEBU-RAMOS, Spouses NARCISO-HIMAYA and ADORACION MARQUEZ-HIMAYA, and Spouses JOSE BERSAMINA and MA. COMMEMORACION PEREA-BUSTAMANTE, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FEDERICO DEL PILAR AND EDILBERTO MONTESIANO, respondents.

G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991

FACTS:

A collision between a gravel and sand truck, driven by Montesiano and owned by Del Pilar and a Mazda passenger bus, driven by Susulin, took place in Tanza, Cavite. Due to the impact several passengers of the bus were injured some died.

The driver of the bus noticed that the wheels of the said truck was wiggling and that the latter was occupying his lane. In thinking that the driver of the truck was only joking, he accelerated and tried to overtake a hand tractor, the collision took place.

Trial Court rendered the decision that both drivers shall be soidarily liable.

CA, reversed and set a side the judgment in favor of Del Pilar and Montesiano, opined that "the bus driver had the last clear chance to avoid the collision and his reckless negligence in proceeding to overtake the hand tractor was the proximate cause of the collision."

ISSUE:

Whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance can be applied in the present case.

HELD:

The respondent court adopted the doctrine of "last clear chance." The doctrine, stated broadly, is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a 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 plaintiff's negligence. In other words, 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. As the doctrine is usually stated, 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.

In the recent case of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. (G.R. Nos. 66102-04, August 30, 1990), the Court citing the landmark decision held in the case of Anuran, et al. v. Buno, et al. (123 Phil. 1073) ruled that 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."