TOGUAY, Paul Jeffrey U.

2019-80129
Block 4

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED, and the decision of respondent Court of
Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the amount of compensatory damages for the
death of Harold Jim Baesa and Marcelino Baesa are increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)
each.

Citation G.R. Nos. 79050-51

Date November 14, 1989

Petitioner PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC.

Respondent MARICAR BASCOS BAESA, thru her personal guardian FRANCISCA O. BASCOS, FE
O. ICO, in her behalf and in behalf of her minor children, namely
ERWIN, OLIVE, EDMUNDO and SHARON ICO

PRINCIPLES/
DOCTRINES

CORTES, J.:

FACTS:
The spouses Ceasar and Marilyn Baesa and their children were aboard a passenger jeepney on
their way to a picnic in Isabela, to celebrate the fifth wedding anniversary of the spouses. The group,
numbering fifteen (15) persons, rode in the passenger jeepney driven by David Ico, who was also the
registered owner thereof.

While approaching the highway going to their destination, the jeepney turned right and
proceeded to Malalam River at a speed of about 20 kph. While they were proceeding towards Malalam
River, a speeding PANTRANCO bus from Aparri, on its regular route to Manila, encroached on the
jeepney’s lane while negotiating a curve, and collided with it.
 As a result of the accident David Ico, spouses Ceasar Baesa and Marilyn Baesa and their
children, Harold Jim and Marcelino Baesa, died while the rest of the passengers suffered injuries.

The jeepney was extensively damaged. After the accident the driver of the PANTRANCO Bus,
escaped and went into hiding even during the case was in SC.

All the victims and/or their surviving heirs except herein private respondents settled the case
amicably under the "No Fault" insurance coverage of PANTRANCO.

The respondents filed separate actions for damages arising from QUASIDELICT against
PANTRANCO before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.

In its answer, PANTRANCO, aside from pointing to the late David Ico’s alleged negligence as
the proximate cause of the accident, invoked the defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its driver, Ambrosio Ramirez.

the CFI of Pangasinan rendered a decision against PANTRANCO awarding the total amount of
Two Million Three Hundred Four Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Seven (P2,304,647.00) as damages,
plus 10% thereof as attorney’s fees and costs to Maricar Baesa in Civil Case No. 561-R, and the total
amount of Six Hundred Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Two Pesos (P652,672.00) as
damages, plus 10% thereof as attorney’s fees and costs to Fe Ico and her children in Civil Case No. 589-
R.

The Court of Appeals lowered the amount for indemnity. MR denied for lack of merit.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance applicable against the jeepney driver.

2. Whether or not David Ico was negligent in failing to observe Section 43 (c), Article III Chapter IV of
Republic Act No. 4136 * which provides that the driver of a vehicle entering a through highway or a
stop intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching in either direction on such
through highway.

3. Whether or not the conduct of the bus driver was the immediate and direct cause of the accident.

4. Whether or not the employer of the bus driver is also liable.

RULING:
1. NO. The Doctrine of Last clear chance doctrine cannot be applied here as the bus driver, having
opportunity to swerve in a great clearance, did not do so.
 For the doctrine to be applicable, it is necessary to show that the
person who allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the accident was
aware of the existence of the peril or should, with exercise of due care, have
been aware of it.

In this case, there is nothing to show that the jeepney driver David Ico knew of the
impending danger. When he saw at a distance that the approaching bus was encroaching on
his lane, he did not immediately swerve the jeepney to the dirt shoulder on his right since he
must have assumed that the bus driver will return the bus to its own lane upon seeing the
jeepney approaching from the opposite direction. There was nothing to indicate to David Ico
that the bus could not return to its own lane or was prevented from returning to the proper
lane by anything beyond the control of its driver. Leo Marantan, an alternate driver of the
Pantranco bus who was seated beside the driver Ramirez at the time of the accident, testified
that Ramirez had no choice but to swerve the steering wheel to the left and encroach on the
jeepney’s lane because there was a steep precipice on the right [CA Decision, p. 2; Rollo, p.
45]. However, this is belied by the evidence on record which clearly shows that there was
enough space to swerve the bus back to its own lane without any danger.

at the time of the accident the Pantranco bus was speeding towards Manila. By the
time David Ico must have realized that the bus was not returning to its own lane, it was
already too late to swerve the jeepney to his right to prevent an accident. The speed at which
the approaching bus was running prevented David Ico from swerving the jeepney to the right
shoulder of the road in time to avoid the collision. Thus, even assuming that the jeepney
driver perceived the danger a few seconds before the actual collision, he had no opportunity
to avoid it. This Court has held that the last clear chance doctrine "can never apply where the
party charged is required to act instantaneously, and the injury cannot be avoided by the
application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered"

Thus, the doctrine of last clear chance cannot be applied in this case.

2. NO. The cited law itself provides that it applies only to vehicles entering a through highway or a
stop intersection. At the time of the accident, the jeepney had already crossed the intersection and was
on its way to Malalam River. Petitioner itself cited Fe Ico’s testimony that the accident occurred after
the jeepney had travelled a distance of about two (2) meters from the point of intersection [Petition p.
10; Rollo, p. 27]. In fact, even the witness for the petitioner, Leo Marantan, testified that both vehicles
were coming from opposite directions [CA Decision, p. 7; Rollo, p. 50], clearly indicating that the
jeepney had already crossed the intersection.

3. YES. the negligence of petitioner’s driver in encroaching into the lane of the incoming jeepney and
in failing to return the bus to its own lane immediately upon seeing the jeepney coming from the
opposite direction was the sole and proximate cause of the accident without which the collision would
not have occurred. There was no supervening or intervening negligence on the part of the jeepney
driver which would have made the prior negligence of petitioner’s driver a mere remote cause of the
accident.

4. YES. The employer is direct and primarily liable as their evidence was insufficient to prove that they
applied the due diligence required in the selection and supervision of the bus driver.

When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there

In the case at bar, the evidence submitted by the defendant to show that it exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in the case of Ramirez, as a company driver is far from sufficient.
No support evidence has been adduced. The professional driver’s license of Ramirez has not been
produced. There is no proof that he is between 25 to 38 years old. There is also no proof as to his
educational attainment, his age, his weight and the fact that he is married or not. Neither are the
result of the written test, psychological and physical test, among other tests, have been submitted in
evidence [sic]. His NBI or police clearances and clearances from previous employment were not
marked in evidence. No evidence was presented that Ramirez actually and really attended the
seminars. Vital evidence should have been the certificate of attendance or certificate of participation or
evidence of such participation like a logbook signed by the trainees when they attended the seminars.
If such records are not available, the testimony of the classmates that Ramirez was their classmate in
said seminar (should have been presented)