9.

ANURAN VS BUNO clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
G.R. NO. L-21353/54 consequences arising therefrom.
MAY 20, 1966 a. The rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of
TOPIC: COMMON CARRIERS; CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair
PETITIONER: GREGORIO ANURAN, MARIA MALIGAYA, LAPAZ LARO ET AL chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
RESPONDENT: PEPITO BUNO, PEDRO GAHOL, LUISA ALCANTARA ET AL 9. As to damages. The driver and the owners of the truck have not appealed from the CA
PONENTE: BENGZON assessment. The plaintiffs have not asked here for a greater amount of indemnity. They
DOCTRINE: The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent merely pray for a declaration that Pepito Buño, Pedro Gahol and Luisa Alcantara (the driver
but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where and the owners of the jeepney, respectively) be declared jointly and severally liable with
it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the the other defendants.
incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed FALLO: Wherefore, affirming the decision under review, we hereby modify it in the sense
to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. prayed for by plaintiffs-petitioners. The three defendants last mentioned are required to pay
FACTS: solidarily with the other defendants-respondents the amounts fixed by the appealed decision.
1. A jeep carrying 14-16 (conflicting testimony) passengers, w/c was owned by Sps. Gahol and Costs of both appeals against said three defendants.
Alcantara and driven by Buno, was travelling its regular rout from Mahabang Ludlud, Taal
towards the Taal’s poblacion. The jeep was overloaded when It crossed a bridge as its max.
capacity was only 11. After crossing the bridge, Buno stopped the jeep as one 1 passenger
alighted. But he parked the keep in a way that ½ of its width (i.e. left wheels) was still on
the pavement while the other ½ was on the road’s shoulder. 5 mins later or before Buno
could restart his jeep, a speeding water truck owned by Sps. Maligata and Aro and driven
by Razon going the similar route smashed against the jeep causing it to turtle in the ditch.
3 passengers died while 2 were injured and confined in a hospital.
2. These suits were instituted by the representative of the dead and injured to recover
damages against the driver and owners of the truck and jeep. The CFI absolved the jeep
driver and its owner while the truck driver and the owners were made liable.
3. Plaintiffs appealed to the CA insisting that the jeep driver and owner should also be held
liable The CA affirmed the CFI’s decision to exonerate the jeep driver and the owners.
Although Buno was not free from fault, he negligently parked his vehicle in such a way as
narrated by the facts but the Razon had greater negligence w/c was the efficient cause of
the collision by applying the last clear chance doctrine.
4. Plaintiffs still insisted that respondents should also be held liable.
5. ISSUE: WoN the jeep driver and his owner should also be liable – YES
RULING
6. There was an error in releasing the jeep from liability. The obligation of the carrier to
transport its passengers under the NCC requires the utmost diligence. They are presumed
to have been at fault or negligent unless they prove that they exercised extraordinary
diligence. In this case, such presumption is confirmed by the CA that Buno was negligent
in parking the jeep improperly. It must follow that the driver and owners must answer to
the injuries caused.
7. Last Clear Chance: 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.
8. NOTE (DOCTRINE IS NOT FOUND IN THE CASE): The doctrine of last clear chance provides
that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in
point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault
or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last