PNR V.

ETHEL BRUNTY
G.R. NO.169891
DATE: November 2, 2006
PONENTE: Callejo, Sr., J.

FACTS:

Rhonda Brunty, an American citizen and daughter of Ehtel Brunty, visited the Philippines. Before her
departure, she with her Filipino host, Juan Manuel Garcia, went to Baguio on board a Mercedez Benz
driven by Mercelita, around 12 midnight. On the other hand, a PNR train bound for Tutuban, Manila left
La Union station at 11pm. At around 2am, the Benz was approaching the railroad crossing at Moncada,
Tarlac. The car was running at a speed of 70km/hr and had overtaken a vehicle when it collided with the
PNR train. Brunty was rushed to the hospital, but was pronounced dead 10 minutes after arrival, while
Garcia suffered severe head injuries.

A demand letter was sent to PNR which did not respond. A complaint for damages was filed against
it. PNR argues that since there is freedom of control and greater maneuverability on the part of motor
vehicles, it is obvious that in railroad crossings, they have the last clear chance to prevent or avoid an
unwanted accident from taking place.

RTC: PNR negligent; CA: affirmed

ISSUE/S: WON the doctrine of last clear chance applies

RULING: NO. The proximate cause of the injury having been established to be the negligence of PNR, the
doctrine finds no application in the instant case.

PNR was negligent because of its failure to provide the necessary safety device to ensure the safety of
motorists in crossing the railroad track: (1.) absence of flagbars or safety railroad bars; (2.) inadequacy of
the installed warning signals; and (3.) lack of proper lighting within the area.

Thus, even if there was a flagman stationed at the site as claimed by PNR, it would still be impossible to
know or see that there is a railroad crossing/tracks ahead, or that there is an approaching train from the
Moncada side of the road since one’s view would be blocked by a cockpit arena. A vehicle coming from
the Moncada side would have difficulty in knowing that there is an approaching train because of the
slight curve, more so, at an unholy hour as 2:00 a.m. Thus, it is imperative on the part of the PNR to
provide adequate safety equipment in the area

This Court has previously determined the liability of the PNR for damages for its failure to put a cross bar,
or signal light, flagman or switchman, or semaphores. Such failure is evidence of negligence and
disregard of the safety of the public, even if there is no law or ordinance requiring it because public
safety demands that said device or equipment be installed.

There was a contributory negligence on the part driver of the Mercedez Benz, Mercelita, as the place
was not properly illuminated; one’s view was blocked by a cockpit arena; and Mercelita was unfamiliar
with the place, yet he drove at 70km/hr and had overtaken a vehicle before arriving at the railroad
track. However, the effect of contributory negligence on the mitigation of liability does not apply here.
Both before the lower courts, no damages were awarded to Mercelita and he did not appeal. There is
neither proof as to the relationship between Mercelita and Rhonda Brunty.