LADECO vs. ANGALA

LADECO vs. ANGALA

G.R. No. 153076 - June 21, 2007

FACTS:

On May 4, 1993, at about 2:45 p.m., a Datsun crewcab with plate no. PEC-93 was driven by Apolonio Deocampo bumped into a 1958 Chevy pick-up with plate no. MAM-475 owned by Michael Raymond Angala and driven by Bernulfo Borres. Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation (LADECO) owned the crewcab which was assigned to its manager Manuel Mendez. Deocampo was the driver and bodyguard of Mendez. Both vehicles were running along Rafael Castillo St., Agdao, Davao City heading north towards Lanang, Davao City. The left door, front left fender, and part of the front bumper of the pick-up were damaged.

Respondent Angala filed an action for Quasi-Delict, Damages, and Attorney’s fees against LADECO, its administrative officer Henry Berenguel and Deocampo. Respondent alleged that his pick-up was slowing down to about five to ten kilometers per hour (kph) and was making a left turn preparatory to turning south when it was bumped from behind by the crewcab which was running at around 60 to 70 kph. The crewcab stopped 21 meters from the point of impact. Respondent alleged that he heard a screeching sound before the impact. Respondent was seated beside the driver and was looking at the speedometer when the accident took place. Respondent testified that Borres made a signal because he noticed a blinking light while looking at the speedometer.

Respondent sent a demand letter to LADEDO for the payment of the damages he incurred because of the accident but he did not receive any reply. Thus, respondent filed the case against LADECO, Berenguel, and Deocampo.

In its March 3, 1995 Decision, the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 15 ruled in favor of defendant and ordered LADECO and Deocampo to solidarily pay the damages. The trial court found that Berenguel was not liable because he was not the owner of the crewcab. LADECO and Deocampo filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied on June 13, 1995.

Petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. However, the appellate court affirmed in toto the trial court’s decision. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. In its March 11, 2002 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit. Hence, the present petition was filed before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance applies in the case at bar.

RULING:

Yes.

Since both parties are at fault in this case, the doctrine of last clear chance applies

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 has the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the loss. In this case, Deocampo had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. Since Deocampo was driving the rear vehicle, he had full control of the situation since he was in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him. Deocampo had the responsibility of avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of him. A U-turn is done at a much slower speed to avoid skidding and overturning, compared to running straight ahead. Deocampo could have avoided the vehicle if he was not driving very fast while following the pick-up. Deocampo was not only driving fast, he also admitted that he did not step on the brakes even upon seeing the pick-up. He only stepped on the brakes after the collision.