Topic: Last Clear Chance

Gregorio Anuran et al v Pepito Buno

Nos. L-21353 and L-21354; 20 May 1966

Facts:
 A passenger jeep was parked on the road to Taal, Batangas.
 A motor truck, speeding along, negligently bumped it from behind causing the death of 3 of
its passengers, and injury to the other 2.
 Suits were instituted by representatives of the dead and of the injured, to recover damages
against the driver and owners of the truck, and against the driver and owners of the
jeepney.
 Batangas CFI: absolved the jeepney driver and owners, but required truck driver and
owners to pay.
 Plaintiff: appealed to CA insisting driver and owners of jeepney should also be liable
 CA: affirmed exoneration of jeepney driver and of its owners. Although driver of ill-starred
vehicle was not free from fault, for he was guilty of an antecedent negligence in parking his
vehicle with a portion occupying the asphalted road, it considered the truck driver guilty of
greater negligence which was the efficient cause of the collision. Applying the doctrine of
last clear chance, truck owners shall pay solidarily with its driver the damages
Issues:
W/N driver and owners of the jeepney should be made liable.
W/N doctrine of last clear chance shall apply

Ruling:
1. Yes
 The error of law was committed in releasing the jeepney from liability.
 It must be remembered that the obligation of the carrier to transport its passengers safely is
such that the NCC requires utmost diligence from the carriers who are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they have observed
extraordinary diligence.
 This legel presumption of negligence is confirmed by CA’s finding that the jeepney driver
was at fault in parking the vehicle improperly.
2. No
 The principle about the “last clear chance” would call for application in a suit between the
owners and drivers of the two 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.

 Affirming the decision under review, we hereby modify it in the sense prayed for by
plaintiffspetitioners. The three defendants last mentioned are required to pay solidarily with
the other defendants- respondents the amounts fixed by the appealed decision.