Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
72 views2 pages

G.R No. L - 153076

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines involving a car accident. It describes how a truck driven by Apolonio Deocampo bumped into the back of a pickup truck driven by Bernulfo Borres and owned by Michael Raymond Angala. Angala sued LADECO, who owned the truck, and its drivers. The Court ruled that while both parties were partially at fault, the doctrine of last clear chance applied since Deocampo had the last opportunity to avoid the collision but failed to do so, as he was driving fast and did not brake in time. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that LADECO and Deocampo were liable for damages.

Uploaded by

HanilavMora
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views2 pages

G.R No. L - 153076

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines involving a car accident. It describes how a truck driven by Apolonio Deocampo bumped into the back of a pickup truck driven by Bernulfo Borres and owned by Michael Raymond Angala. Angala sued LADECO, who owned the truck, and its drivers. The Court ruled that while both parties were partially at fault, the doctrine of last clear chance applied since Deocampo had the last opportunity to avoid the collision but failed to do so, as he was driving fast and did not brake in time. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that LADECO and Deocampo were liable for damages.

Uploaded by

HanilavMora
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

153076

LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (LADECO), HENRY BERENGUEL,


and APOLONIO R. DEOCAMPO, petitioners,
vs.
MICHAEL RAYMOND ANGALA, respondent.

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 LADECO 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.

You might also like